The Money Mustache Community

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: dycker1978 on January 26, 2018, 07:43:20 AM

Title: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dycker1978 on January 26, 2018, 07:43:20 AM
I bring this up because it is incredibly sad.  I am not sure if anything will change, but this is just sad.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3986676/us-school-shootings-2018-donald-trump/
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 26, 2018, 08:32:47 AM
I don't think that Trump really has the power to do anything about it.  Easy access to guns for all is what the majority of Americans appear to want.  Mass shootings are a sad but completely predictable natural consequence of public support for these policies.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 26, 2018, 12:21:04 PM
I don't think that Trump really has the power to do anything about it.  Easy access to guns for all is what the majority of Americans appear to want.  Mass shootings are a sad but completely predictable natural consequence of public support for these policies.

Actually Trump is sending military weapons to local police/fire departments. Because you know, the best way to keep children safe is with more military weapons.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on January 26, 2018, 01:00:26 PM
So is this a willful ignorance about the cause of shootings or some sort of cultural or logical blind spot for conservatives? More guns won't help anything.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Fractal- on January 26, 2018, 01:03:29 PM
As much of a gun related issue, I would say it is equally, if not more of, a mental health issue.  I feel like this is often lost in the discussion.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 26, 2018, 01:04:39 PM
Don't get me wrong, school shootings are awful, but in total we're looking at 3 homicides, 2 suicides, and 20 injuries according to the article posted. One of the suicides was a guy killing himself in a car in the parking lot of a school.

3 homicides among over 50 million students in the United states. That's 0.000006%. Again, it's awful, but let's keep in mind the actual magnitude of this problem. Anything can be made to sound like an epidemic when you use absolute numbers among an enormous sample size.

Quote
These are the school-related shootings that have happened so far in 2018:

Jan. 3 — St. John, Mich.: A man shoots himself in the parking lot of East Olive Elementary School.

Jan. 4 — Seattle, Wash.: A bullet is fired into New Start High School, but no one is injured.

Jan. 6 — Forest City, Iowa: A 32-year-old man fires at a school bus, and one window is shattered. No one is injured.

Jan. 10 — San Bernardino, Calif.: No one is injured after a bullet hits a building at California State University.

Jan. 10 — Denison, Texas: A Grayson College student accidentally fires a weapon, no one is injured.

Jan. 10 — Sierra Vista, Ariz.: A 14-year-old boy is found shot dead inside a bathroom at Coronado K-8 Elementary School. It appears to be a self-inflicted wound.

Jan. 15 — Marshall, Texas: A bullet is fired into a dorm room at Wiley College, with three female students inside. No one is injured.

Jan. 20 — Winston-Salem, N.C.: A 21-year-old student is shot dead after an argument at Wake Forest University.

Jan. 22 — Italy, Texas:  A 16-year-old boy shoots a female classmate at Italy High School.

Jan. 22 — New Orleans, La.: Shooting at Net Charter School leaves one male student injured.

Jan. 23 — Benton, Ky: High school shooting leaves two 15-year-old students dead, 18 injured.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 26, 2018, 01:07:14 PM
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/0*5_0eyjsa9L80xyOg.png)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Travis on January 26, 2018, 01:33:05 PM
I don't think that Trump really has the power to do anything about it.  Easy access to guns for all is what the majority of Americans appear to want.  Mass shootings are a sad but completely predictable natural consequence of public support for these policies.

Actually Trump is sending military weapons to local police/fire departments. Because you know, the best way to keep children safe is with more military weapons.

Police departments have been arming up since the early 1990s. That's nothing new.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Aelias on January 26, 2018, 03:31:28 PM
Don't get me wrong, school shootings are awful, but in total we're looking at 3 homicides, 2 suicides, and 20 injuries according to the article posted. One of the suicides was a guy killing himself in a car in the parking lot of a school.

3 homicides among over 50 million students in the United states. That's 0.000006%. Again, it's awful, but let's keep in mind the actual magnitude of this problem. Anything can be made to sound like an epidemic when you use absolute numbers among an enormous sample size.

Quote
These are the school-related shootings that have happened so far in 2018:

Jan. 3 — St. John, Mich.: A man shoots himself in the parking lot of East Olive Elementary School.

Jan. 4 — Seattle, Wash.: A bullet is fired into New Start High School, but no one is injured.

Jan. 6 — Forest City, Iowa: A 32-year-old man fires at a school bus, and one window is shattered. No one is injured.

Jan. 10 — San Bernardino, Calif.: No one is injured after a bullet hits a building at California State University.

Jan. 10 — Denison, Texas: A Grayson College student accidentally fires a weapon, no one is injured.

Jan. 10 — Sierra Vista, Ariz.: A 14-year-old boy is found shot dead inside a bathroom at Coronado K-8 Elementary School. It appears to be a self-inflicted wound.

Jan. 15 — Marshall, Texas: A bullet is fired into a dorm room at Wiley College, with three female students inside. No one is injured.

Jan. 20 — Winston-Salem, N.C.: A 21-year-old student is shot dead after an argument at Wake Forest University.

Jan. 22 — Italy, Texas:  A 16-year-old boy shoots a female classmate at Italy High School.

Jan. 22 — New Orleans, La.: Shooting at Net Charter School leaves one male student injured.

Jan. 23 — Benton, Ky: High school shooting leaves two 15-year-old students dead, 18 injured.

This is really important.  I'm a strong supporter of gun control, but facts. always. matter.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on January 26, 2018, 03:49:33 PM
Quote
3 homicides among over 50 million students in the United states. That's 0.000006%. Again, it's awful, but let's keep in mind the actual magnitude of this problem

Let's do some fuzzy maths.

50 million students divided by 1000 (average school size) makes 50,000 schools.

11 firearms incidents at schools per month makes 132 incidents per year.

Your children will likely spend 17 years at school.

50,000 / 132 / 17 = 22.28

That's right, your child has a one in twenty two chance of being at a school during a firearms incident.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on January 26, 2018, 04:28:47 PM
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/0*5_0eyjsa9L80xyOg.png)

Haha, this is so how I see the US at this point... I don’t think I will ever understand how people believe any gun law is bad and some kind of affront to their humanity.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Indexer on January 26, 2018, 05:05:47 PM
I don't think that Trump really has the power to do anything about it.  Easy access to guns for all is what the majority of Americans appear to want.  Mass shootings are a sad but completely predictable natural consequence of public support for these policies.

False. Easy access to guns for all is NOT what the majority of Americans want. The overwhelming majority of Americans support universal background checks(85-90% depending on the study). Even among NRA members, the majority(75%) support background checks.

source 1: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/
source 2: https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/28/strong-majority-of-americans-nra-members-back-gun-control

Congressmen, specifically Republican congressmen, paid off by the gun lobby support easy access to guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: BudgetSlasher on January 26, 2018, 05:11:18 PM
As much of a gun related issue, I would say it is equally, if not more of, a mental health issue.  I feel like this is often lost in the discussion.

I agree; access to guns is part of the problem, but so is mental health, which is driven home by the fact that 2 of the 11 incidents appear to be suicides. (and honestly eduction and employment outlooks).

Quote
3 homicides among over 50 million students in the United states. That's 0.000006%. Again, it's awful, but let's keep in mind the actual magnitude of this problem

Let's do some fuzzy maths.

50 million students divided by 1000 (average school size) makes 50,000 schools.

11 firearms incidents at schools per month makes 132 incidents per year.

Your children will likely spend 17 years at school.

50,000 / 132 / 17 = 22.28

That's right, your child has a one in twenty two chance of being at a school during a firearms incident.

Those numbers are way off, so let us un-fuzz the math

The average size of a public school was 546.4 and there were 88,182 public schools (for the 2009-2010 year) https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/pesschools09/tables/table_05.asp

CAPE says there are another 33,619 private schools.

But those are only for k-12, some of the incidents took place at colleges and universities; let's use the total degree granting post secondary intuitions for this number as 6,742 for the 2009-2010 year.

So now the math looks like

(88,182 + 33,619+ 6,742) / (11*12) / 17

128,543 / 132 / 17 = 57.28...

Now if we use January as a base for the year and say firearm incidents a student would be at risk, then we should take January 4th parking lot suicide out of the equation (also the school was empty at the time) and the January 10th student suicide out of the equation. The math becomes

(88,182 + 33,619+ 6,742) / (9*12) / 17 = 70.01...

If we further eliminate the January 9th shooting a school bus as it was neither at school not was it a firearm (pellet gun), not that they cannot be lethal. the math becomes

(88,182 + 33,619+ 6,742) / (8*12) / 17 = 78.76...

All numbers and odds of being in danger at school aside any shooting injury or death is a tragedy, regardless of where it occurs or the age of the victim. At the very least, we should be able to have the conversation of what reasonable measures to prevent needless deaths are in terms of resources to enforce existing laws and update databases, allowing gun violence to be researched, allowing purchase records to be digital inventoried, even allowing (if not requiring) private sales to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or addition gun control measure. Alas, we cannot seem to have a civil discussion on even one of those topics (even if we decided in the end to do nothing.)

But the conversation also needs to be truthful, a suicide in the parking lot of a school when school is empty should not be called a "school shooting." The focus on "assault rifles/weapons" is simply put focusing on a very small sub-set, most firearm murders where the weapon is identified are handguns by multi-fold margin (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 26, 2018, 05:31:21 PM
Always amazes me that's it's reduced down to a stat when it's not your child. I bet the folks suffering from the loss of a child could give a shit about stats.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: BlueMR2 on January 26, 2018, 07:30:33 PM
Well, you have to turn it into cold stats.  If you ran a country based on individual anecdotes and emotion it's an unsustainable situation.  Which unfortunately seems to be where we're heading already.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Johnez on January 26, 2018, 11:52:16 PM
Always amazes me that's it's reduced down to a stat when it's not your child. I bet the folks suffering from the loss of a child could give a shit about stats.

It's the cold stats that determine where the most bad is that needs addressing and what is doing the most good that needs investing. If lack of seatbelt wearing kills 1 in 50,000 children versus school shootings that kill 1 in 100,000 children (made up numbers)-where should the money go? Guns are scary, and seatbelts aren't but cold hard numbers need to be applied, otherwise money and energy are going to be wasted and fewer children are protected.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: jan62 on January 27, 2018, 01:49:19 AM
its actually not a mental health problem. People suffering mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violence than to commit violence. Other western countries have similar rates of mental health disorders and do not have the same level of gun violence. Its a matter of access to lethal means to commit violence on a large scale.  lets not start stigmatising people with mental health problems.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: marty998 on January 27, 2018, 02:53:22 AM
its actually not a mental health problem. People suffering mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violence than to commit violence. Other western countries have similar rates of mental health disorders and do not have the same level of gun violence. Its a matter of access to lethal means to commit violence on a large scale.  lets not start stigmatising people with mental health problems.

Agree, it's not like Australia doesn't have people with mental illness. Babies simply don't get shot here while trying to learn their A B Cs
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 27, 2018, 06:30:38 AM
Always amazes me that's it's reduced down to a stat when it's not your child. I bet the folks suffering from the loss of a child could give a shit about stats.

It's the cold stats that determine where the most bad is that needs addressing and what is doing the most good that needs investing. If lack of seatbelt wearing kills 1 in 50,000 children versus school shootings that kill 1 in 100,000 children (made up numbers)-where should the money go? Guns are scary, and seatbelts aren't but cold hard numbers need to be applied, otherwise money and energy are going to be wasted and fewer children are protected.

Look I am not trying to be mean but that is total bullshit. Hell it's a justification for NO gun regulation. Automobiles kill more people so why not focus all efforts and money on that? Of course cancer beats auto deaths, so screw autos! After 9/11 what happened with airports? The government sure as shit focused on airport/airline safety. Hell Trump is still trying to ban Muslims.

And how much money does it take exactly? I mean since innocent, unable to protect themselves, children aren't dying in large enough quantities to worry about?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: iris lily on January 27, 2018, 12:05:43 PM
Quote
3 homicides among over 50 million students in the United states. That's 0.000006%. Again, it's awful, but let's keep in mind the actual magnitude of this problem

Let's do some fuzzy maths.

50 million students divided by 1000 (average school size) makes 50,000 schools.

11 firearms incidents at schools per month makes 132 incidents per year.

Your children will likely spend 17 years at school.

50,000 / 132 / 17 = 22.28

That's right, your child has a one in twenty two chance of being at a school during a firearms incident.

That is a sobering fuzzy analysis, and all the more reason to homeschool.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Johnez on January 27, 2018, 12:35:08 PM
Always amazes me that's it's reduced down to a stat when it's not your child. I bet the folks suffering from the loss of a child could give a shit about stats.

It's the cold stats that determine where the most bad is that needs addressing and what is doing the most good that needs investing. If lack of seatbelt wearing kills 1 in 50,000 children versus school shootings that kill 1 in 100,000 children (made up numbers)-where should the money go? Guns are scary, and seatbelts aren't but cold hard numbers need to be applied, otherwise money and energy are going to be wasted and fewer children are protected.

Look I am not trying to be mean but that is total bullshit. Hell it's a justification for NO gun regulation. Automobiles kill more people so why not focus all efforts and money on that? Of course cancer beats auto deaths, so screw autos! After 9/11 what happened with airports? The government sure as shit focused on airport/airline safety. Hell Trump is still trying to ban Muslims.

And how much money does it take exactly? I mean since innocent, unable to protect themselves, children aren't dying in large enough quantities to worry about?

Alrighty, not trying to stir something up and I most definitely never said nor meant the bolded.

I have to say, your logic appears faulty. You are going the reductionalist way of thinking here where it isn't required. If you believe sensibly considering statistics means getting rid of gun control-this conversation has come to an end. Enjoy the lifestyle of black and white.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 27, 2018, 02:23:06 PM
Speaking of the need to focus on stats . . . Is this yet another year where toddlers with access to firearms have killed more people in the US than terrorists?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shuffler on January 27, 2018, 02:42:55 PM
Looking solely at the fuzzy-math that was extrapolating from the reports of this month's incidents ...

(88,182 + 33,619+ 6,742) / (8*12) / 17 = 78.76...
Kids are only in school 9 months out of 12.
(88,182 + 33,619+ 6,742) / (8 * 12 9) / 17 = 105

Note that 1/105 is just-under a 1% chance of attending a school that has a shooting incident.

But the conversation also needs to be truthful, a suicide in the parking lot of a school when school is empty should not be called a "school shooting."
Agreed.  And though I wouldn't want to have the burden of somehow being the official person to determine what qualifies as a school shooting or not, if we're going to be doing fuzzy-math, then we at least have to make an amateur-hour attempt at that distinction.

Personally, I'd further eliminate the Jan 10 event at Grayson, as it was an accidental discharge at a firearms-related class at a Criminal Justice college.
And the Jan 10 event at San Bernardino, which was a bullet from off-campus striking a building on-campus, and was after-hours, so doesn't seem especially school-related.
And the Jan 15 event at Marshall and the Jan 20 event at Winston-Salem, both of which were post-midnight and (IMO) are more likely representative of a general population of young people living in apartments and going to venues, than they are anything to do with schools.

Quote
These are the school-related shootings that have happened so far in 2018:
Jan. 3 — St. John, Mich.: A man shoots himself in the parking lot of East Olive Elementary School.
Jan. 4 — Seattle, Wash.: A bullet is fired into New Start High School, but no one is injured.
Jan. 6 — Forest City, Iowa: A 32-year-old man fires at a school bus, and one window is shattered. No one is injured.
Jan. 10 — San Bernardino, Calif.: No one is injured after a bullet hits a building at California State University.
Jan. 10 — Denison, Texas: A Grayson College student accidentally fires a weapon, no one is injured.
Jan. 10 — Sierra Vista, Ariz.: A 14-year-old boy is found shot dead inside a bathroom at Coronado K-8 Elementary School. It appears to be a self-inflicted wound.
Jan. 15 — Marshall, Texas: A bullet is fired into a dorm room at Wiley College, with three female students inside. No one is injured.
Jan. 20 — Winston-Salem, N.C.: A 21-year-old student is shot dead after an argument at Wake Forest University.

Jan. 22 — Italy, Texas:  A 16-year-old boy shoots a female classmate at Italy High School.
Jan. 22 — New Orleans, La.: Shooting at Net Charter School leaves one male student injured.
Jan. 23 — Benton, Ky: High school shooting leaves two 15-year-old students dead, 18 injured.

Under those considerations:
(88,182 + 33,619+ 6,742) / (8 4 * 9) / 17 = 210, which is ~0.47%

It would seem, in my opinion, that the first round of fuzzy-math (1 out of 22) was off by nearly an order of magnitude.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bacchi on January 27, 2018, 04:25:38 PM
Under those considerations:
(88,182 + 33,619+ 6,742) / (8 4 * 9) / 17 = 210, which is ~0.47%

This is an order higher than the chance of being involved in a fatal car accident.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shuffler on January 27, 2018, 06:39:10 PM
Under those considerations:
(88,182 + 33,619+ 6,742) / (8 4 * 9) / 17 = 210, which is ~0.47%

This is an order higher than the chance of being involved in a fatal car accident.
Does "involved in" mean "dying of" a fatal car accident?

It's sort of a strange comparison.  The school-shooting odds that we've been projecting here are the chances of being at school on the day of a shooting.  So the vast majority of students in that ~0.47% would have been in different classes, etc. and not even have seen the shooter directly.  A direct comparison to fatal car accidents might be something more like: the chances of being on the same road or in-the-general-vicinity-of a fatal car accident.  Or do it the other way around and compare against the chances of dying from a school shooting.

Anyhow, of course it's fundamentally unsound to base a projection on a single month's worth of "data".  It's probably not worth comparing the numbers we're coming up with here against actual stats from broader samples, and would be better to use data from an actual study of school shootings.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 27, 2018, 09:12:25 PM
political cartoon

But, there have been instances of armed citizens stopping public shootings, or preventing them from getting worse. The most recent example is in Texas, where an armed NRA instructor chased down the shooter and killed him in a firefight. Another one I can think of off the top of my head is the one in the mall in Oregon, where a concealed carrier drew and aimed at a mass shooter who then committed suicide shortly thereafter.

Obviously concealed/open carry policies haven't totally ended mass shootings, but neither has any other proposed policy. (And before someone brings up a total ban on guns, that is clearly off the table, so it's really not worth discussing, especially in the post-Heller v DC US.) There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that concealed or open carry policies are harmful, so I doubt there is much to be gained by rolling back the clock on these policies.

As well, there seems to be this perception that the NRA has "bought off" right wing politicians. This is not true, as the NRA spends very little money lobbying or contributing to political campaigns (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000082), certainly compared to other political organizations. The reason right wing politicians in the US tend to be extremely dogmatic about gun rights is that they have to... if you're a Republican who wants to restrict this gun or that gun, you're simply not going to make it into political office. There are too many single issue voters out there with a lot to personally lose, and let's face it, differences between the GOP and the Democratic Party are often more rhetorical than practical EXCEPT for when it comes to abortion and gun control. If you don't believe me, find a Republican who wants to ban guns and allow abortions or a Democrat who's cool with AR-15s but not Planned Parenthood.

As far as me goes... violence has been on the decline for twenty plus years in the US and while carry policies are probably not the number one factor affecting crime rates, the correlation between their implementation and less crime makes it impossible to argue that more guns necessarily equal more crime, regardless of how intuitive it may seem.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bacchi on January 27, 2018, 11:42:28 PM
As far as me goes... violence has been on the decline for twenty plus years in the US and while carry policies are probably not the number one factor affecting crime rates, the correlation between their implementation and less crime makes it impossible to argue that more guns necessarily equal more crime, regardless of how intuitive it may seem.

No, no.

There's a direct correlation between higher CPU power and less crime over the past 20 years. As CPU flops have increased, crime has decreased. This is evident in some poorer communities where crime hasn't decreased as much due to older computers.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: libertarian4321 on January 28, 2018, 04:23:54 AM
I miss Obama.  That guy could really work up the hysteria every time there was a shooting anywhere.

Nothing sent the prices of guns stocks soaring like an Obama anti-gun rant.

Trump has been terrible for the gun industry.  His lack of hysterics (on this topic, at least), is resulting in rapidly falling gun and ammunition sales.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Teachstache on January 28, 2018, 05:16:22 AM
Quote
3 homicides among over 50 million students in the United states. That's 0.000006%. Again, it's awful, but let's keep in mind the actual magnitude of this problem

Let's do some fuzzy maths.

50 million students divided by 1000 (average school size) makes 50,000 schools.

11 firearms incidents at schools per month makes 132 incidents per year.

Your children will likely spend 17 years at school.

50,000 / 132 / 17 = 22.28

That's right, your child has a one in twenty two chance of being at a school during a firearms incident.

That is a sobering fuzzy analysis, and all the more reason to homeschool.

As a public school teacher who works with a population of students more statistically at risk for these types of incidents, and as a parent myself, I absolutely disagree with this sentiment. You're welcome to homeschool your child(ren) Iris, but I don't see it as any reason at all to homeschool my son, or to stop working with students who have significant mental health needs.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 28, 2018, 05:39:46 AM
Always amazes me that's it's reduced down to a stat when it's not your child. I bet the folks suffering from the loss of a child could give a shit about stats.

It's the cold stats that determine where the most bad is that needs addressing and what is doing the most good that needs investing. If lack of seatbelt wearing kills 1 in 50,000 children versus school shootings that kill 1 in 100,000 children (made up numbers)-where should the money go? Guns are scary, and seatbelts aren't but cold hard numbers need to be applied, otherwise money and energy are going to be wasted and fewer children are protected.

Look I am not trying to be mean but that is total bullshit. Hell it's a justification for NO gun regulation. Automobiles kill more people so why not focus all efforts and money on that? Of course cancer beats auto deaths, so screw autos! After 9/11 what happened with airports? The government sure as shit focused on airport/airline safety. Hell Trump is still trying to ban Muslims.

And how much money does it take exactly? I mean since innocent, unable to protect themselves, children aren't dying in large enough quantities to worry about?

Alrighty, not trying to stir something up and I most definitely never said nor meant the bolded.

I have to say, your logic appears faulty. You are going the reductionalist way of thinking here where it isn't required. If you believe sensibly considering statistics means getting rid of gun control-this conversation has come to an end. Enjoy the lifestyle of black and white.

No I am referring to the logic in bold that, because not enough kids are dying, that the government isn't going to throw any sort of money at the problem. It wasn't my logic. It was yours. The government doesn't work that way and never has.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 28, 2018, 05:50:42 AM
I miss Obama.  That guy could really work up the hysteria every time there was a shooting anywhere.

Nothing sent the prices of guns stocks soaring like an Obama anti-gun rant.

Trump has been terrible for the gun industry.  His lack of hysterics (on this topic, at least), is resulting in rapidly falling gun and ammunition sales.

True. Even as the number of mass shootings continues to increase, with 2017 being the deadliest so far. 2018 is not looking so good. But hey, gun sales are down ( :
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 28, 2018, 10:24:18 AM
As far as me goes... violence has been on the decline for twenty plus years in the US and while carry policies are probably not the number one factor affecting crime rates, the correlation between their implementation and less crime makes it impossible to argue that more guns necessarily equal more crime, regardless of how intuitive it may seem.

No, no.

There's a direct correlation between higher CPU power and less crime over the past 20 years. As CPU flops have increased, crime has decreased. This is evident in some poorer communities where crime hasn't decreased as much due to older computers.

That is a reductio ad absurdum because I didn't say that CCW policies have caused crime to go down. If anything, all the correlation shows for certain is that CCW policies do not cause crime to go up so much that all other anti-crime policies are suppressed.

It is saddening, however, that those who are so skeptical of the possibility that CCW policies may cause crime rates to decrease often take it as axiomatic that fewer guns equals less crime, when there simply is not convincing evidence towards that point.

EDIT: As for the fuzzy analysis, that is a horrendous abuse of probability and statistics.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Will on January 28, 2018, 10:51:18 AM
"Thoughts and prayers" are really working!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bacchi on January 28, 2018, 12:14:04 PM
As far as me goes... violence has been on the decline for twenty plus years in the US and while carry policies are probably not the number one factor affecting crime rates, the correlation between their implementation and less crime makes it impossible to argue that more guns necessarily equal more crime, regardless of how intuitive it may seem.

No, no.

There's a direct correlation between higher CPU power and less crime over the past 20 years. As CPU flops have increased, crime has decreased. This is evident in some poorer communities where crime hasn't decreased as much due to older computers.

That is a reductio ad absurdum because I didn't say that CCW policies have caused crime to go down. If anything, all the correlation shows for certain is that CCW policies do not cause crime to go up so much that all other anti-crime policies are suppressed.

That's not actually reductio ad absurdum*. I simply pointed out, sarcastically, your questionable cause fallacy. Granted, I could have just repeated the statistician's mantra but it was more fun this way.

Quote
It is saddening, however, that those who are so skeptical of the possibility that CCW policies may cause crime rates to decrease often take it as axiomatic that fewer guns equals less crime, when there simply is not convincing evidence towards that point.

It is saddening that, if one questions any pro-gun argument, especially as it relates to the belief that more guns=fewer crimes, one is assumed to automatically be skeptical to the original premise.


Quote
EDIT: As for the fuzzy analysis, that is a horrendous abuse of probability and statistics.

Seems to be common around here.



*"Well, then, if EVERYONE were carrying a CCW, there would be 0 crimes!!1!! Is that what you're saying?" <=== ad absurdum
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ender on January 28, 2018, 12:16:55 PM
Always amazes me that's it's reduced down to a stat when it's not your child. I bet the folks suffering from the loss of a child could give a shit about stats.

It's the cold stats that determine where the most bad is that needs addressing and what is doing the most good that needs investing. If lack of seatbelt wearing kills 1 in 50,000 children versus school shootings that kill 1 in 100,000 children (made up numbers)-where should the money go? Guns are scary, and seatbelts aren't but cold hard numbers need to be applied, otherwise money and energy are going to be wasted and fewer children are protected.

Look I am not trying to be mean but that is total bullshit. Hell it's a justification for NO gun regulation. Automobiles kill more people so why not focus all efforts and money on that? Of course cancer beats auto deaths, so screw autos! After 9/11 what happened with airports? The government sure as shit focused on airport/airline safety. Hell Trump is still trying to ban Muslims.

And how much money does it take exactly? I mean since innocent, unable to protect themselves, children aren't dying in large enough quantities to worry about?

What it comes down to is people are far more passionate about fixing threats to their safety which are outside of their control vs controlling those that are within their sphere of influence (even if the external threats are orders of magnitude less likely to matter).

For example, for children 10-14, suicide is nearly 1.5x more likely to be a cause of death than all homicides (not just school shootings). Not to mention accidents being massively higher than either.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Johnez on January 28, 2018, 12:47:20 PM
I miss Obama.  That guy could really work up the hysteria every time there was a shooting anywhere.

Nothing sent the prices of guns stocks soaring like an Obama anti-gun rant.

Trump has been terrible for the gun industry.  His lack of hysterics (on this topic, at least), is resulting in rapidly falling gun and ammunition sales.

In a roundabout way we've achieved some sort of gun control. Or at least the main objective-less weapons and ammo being sold. Lol!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: scottish on January 28, 2018, 03:22:16 PM
As far as me goes... violence has been on the decline for twenty plus years in the US and while carry policies are probably not the number one factor affecting crime rates, the correlation between their implementation and less crime makes it impossible to argue that more guns necessarily equal more crime, regardless of how intuitive it may seem.

No, no.

There's a direct correlation between higher CPU power and less crime over the past 20 years. As CPU flops have increased, crime has decreased. This is evident in some poorer communities where crime hasn't decreased as much due to older computers.

That is a reductio ad absurdum because I didn't say that CCW policies have caused crime to go down. If anything, all the correlation shows for certain is that CCW policies do not cause crime to go up so much that all other anti-crime policies are suppressed.

It is saddening, however, that those who are so skeptical of the possibility that CCW policies may cause crime rates to decrease often take it as axiomatic that fewer guns equals less crime, when there simply is not convincing evidence towards that point.

EDIT: As for the fuzzy analysis, that is a horrendous abuse of probability and statistics.

Why does the US have such a high rate of "gun crime" compared to Canada and Europe?

(Wikipedia linky for reference:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate))
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 28, 2018, 05:19:04 PM
Probably, in no particular order, because of much different rates of poverty, mental illness, multi-generational problems with gangsterism, the drug war, ethnic conflicts and hopelessness or social disconnection.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on January 28, 2018, 05:51:14 PM
School shootings are normal everyday events in the United States. We don't really even notice them anymore unless a relative gets killed. After Sandy Hook, when absolutely nothing was done about a whole lot of 1st graders who were murdered, the conversation about gun control was over and done with. In the United States, we love our firearms far more than we love our children.

I don't like it, but I don't get to set policy in this country.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on January 28, 2018, 05:54:19 PM
School shootings are normal everyday events in the United States. We don't really even notice them anymore unless a relative gets killed. After Sandy Hook, when absolutely nothing was done about a whole lot of 1st graders who were murdered, the conversation about gun control was over and done with. In the United States, we love our firearms far more than we love our children.

I don't like it, but I don't get to set policy in this country.

I don’t have kids.

So, I guess I don’t give a shit.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on January 28, 2018, 05:54:37 PM
Probably, in no particular order, because of much different rates of poverty, mental illness, multi-generational problems with gangsterism, the drug war, ethnic conflicts and hopelessness or social disconnection.
Agreed, except for the inclusion of "mental illness" in that list.

The mental illness smokescreen is used as an easy way of avoiding the real and multifaceted issues around the high gun crime rate.  There is zero credible evidence that the USA suffers from a statistically significant higher rate of mental illness than any other developed country.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on January 28, 2018, 06:31:21 PM
School shootings are normal everyday events in the United States. We don't really even notice them anymore unless a relative gets killed. After Sandy Hook, when absolutely nothing was done about a whole lot of 1st graders who were murdered, the conversation about gun control was over and done with. In the United States, we love our firearms far more than we love our children.

I don't like it, but I don't get to set policy in this country.

I don’t have kids.

So, I guess I don’t give a shit.

Yeah, other people's children can go fuck themselves, amirite?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 28, 2018, 06:36:45 PM
Probably, in no particular order, because of much different rates of poverty, mental illness, multi-generational problems with gangsterism, the drug war, ethnic conflicts and hopelessness or social disconnection.
Agreed, except for the inclusion of "mental illness" in that list.

The mental illness smokescreen is used as an easy way of avoiding the real and multifaceted issues around the high gun crime rate.  There is zero credible evidence that the USA suffers from a statistically significant higher rate of mental illness than any other developed country.

You're right. I probably should have said something like, the way we deal with mental illness in this country probably affects things. Back in the day we would lock people up for mental problems, and while that system definitely had its problems and excesses, our current response isn't what I'd call effective.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 28, 2018, 06:40:58 PM
political cartoon

But, there have been instances of armed citizens stopping public shootings, or preventing them from getting worse. The most recent example is in Texas, where an armed NRA instructor chased down the shooter and killed him in a firefight. Another one I can think of off the top of my head is the one in the mall in Oregon, where a concealed carrier drew and aimed at a mass shooter who then committed suicide shortly thereafter.

Mass shootings aren't the only reason that it's unsafe to have easy access to firearms for everyone.  Toddlers shoot people (including themselves) at roughly a weekly basis in the US.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.7c521a6db759 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.7c521a6db759)

The most recent example was three days ago:  http://kfor.com/2018/01/25/toddler-dies-after-shooting-himself-in-head-with-shotgun-at-fort-worth-home/ (http://kfor.com/2018/01/25/toddler-dies-after-shooting-himself-in-head-with-shotgun-at-fort-worth-home/)



violence has been on the decline for twenty plus years in the US and while carry policies are probably not the number one factor affecting crime rates, the correlation between their implementation and less crime makes it impossible to argue that more guns necessarily equal more crime, regardless of how intuitive it may seem.

I'm not doing this argument again.  The US has already spoken.  Your side won.  Enjoy the safety that easy access to guns for has provided you with.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 28, 2018, 08:00:41 PM
Could it be possible to have liberalized concealed/open carry laws, and policies that might prevent children from accessing firearms? For example, if you have children in your house, you must do x/y/z to secure your guns? I don't know anyone who would permit children to have unsupervised access to guns, including hunters and sportsmen who own 15-20+ guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ender on January 28, 2018, 08:09:22 PM
Could it be possible to have liberalized concealed/open carry laws, and policies that might prevent children from accessing firearms? For example, if you have children in your house, you must do x/y/z to secure your guns? I don't know anyone who would permit children to have unsupervised access to guns, including hunters and sportsmen who own 15-20+ guns.

Most people I know with guns think it's absurd that people with children keep them loaded and accessible.

Part of the problem is there is a massive dereliction of duty by parents in these cases and you can't really mandate people be responsible.

I'm not sure how to get this data, but I'd be surprised if more than a fraction of gun deaths and injuries inflicted by children were not ultimately the fault of irresponsible parenting.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 28, 2018, 08:13:43 PM
There aren't even many accidental gun deaths in the US. It seems shocking to say that it happens every week or what have you, but in a country of 300 million with over 300 million firearms, it's just not that probable. Certainly accidental gun deaths are tragic, but no more so than any other accidental, preventable death.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on January 28, 2018, 08:41:23 PM
Do we have to do this maths again?

15,586 gun deaths per year
x
85 years (your average age)
=
1,324,810 gun related deaths during your life time.

Yip you read that right, over a million fellow citizens will die due to gun related incidents, on US soil during your life time.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 28, 2018, 08:48:05 PM
I believe the number you've cited is gun homocides per year. If we were to include suicides, the number would be quite a lot higher. But, as high as the number may be, the question is, what laws may affect those numbers and what costs do they have. You don't just get to put the problem in perspective and then presuppose that your preferred solution is therefore correct.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on January 28, 2018, 08:57:46 PM
I haven't proposed any solutions. Just putting the numbers into perspective.

If gun deaths keep inflating at their current rate 3%,  you're looking at nearly six million deaths over an 85 year life time.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on January 28, 2018, 09:07:05 PM
School shootings are normal everyday events in the United States. We don't really even notice them anymore unless a relative gets killed. After Sandy Hook, when absolutely nothing was done about a whole lot of 1st graders who were murdered, the conversation about gun control was over and done with. In the United States, we love our firearms far more than we love our children.

I don't like it, but I don't get to set policy in this country.

I don’t have kids.

So, I guess I don’t give a shit.

Yeah, other people's children can go fuck themselves, amirite?

Yup. Fuck everyone except what I am.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on January 28, 2018, 09:24:36 PM
Do we have to do this maths again?

15,586 gun deaths per year
x
85 years (your average age)
=
1,324,810 gun related deaths during your life time.

Yip you read that right, over a million fellow citizens will die due to gun related incidents, on US soil during your life time.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls
15K gun homicides sounds too high; FBI says 11K (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dycker1978 on January 29, 2018, 06:45:07 AM
I am not sure why the fact that there is a gun issue is even up for debate. 

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

According to this, there were 20 mass shootings(4 or more injured or killed including the shooter) in the first 21 days of the year.

That is one a day.  Does it matter if statistically more people get hurt and die in car crashes?  I agree we should try and make them more safe, but saying there is not an issue?  Really?

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ender on January 29, 2018, 06:51:00 AM
I am not sure why the fact that there is a gun issue is even up for debate. 

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

According to this, there were 20 mass shootings(4 or more injured or killed including the shooter) in the first 21 days of the year.

That is one a day.  Does it matter if statistically more people get hurt and die in car crashes?  I agree we should try and make them more safe, but saying there is not an issue?  Really?

Maybe if people used meaningful statistics the discussion would be more reasonable.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dycker1978 on January 29, 2018, 06:58:17 AM
I disagree.  There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives.  This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you  not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that.  No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

Let talk about this issue, not weather or not it is worse then cars.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ender on January 29, 2018, 07:33:35 AM
I disagree.  There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives.  This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you  not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that.  No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

Let talk about this issue, not weather or not it is worse then cars.

Did you even look at the link you pasted here?

It's a bit difficult to have any reasonable conversation with someone who takes a link that says something that fits the narrative they want to say and don't even understand the information it is presenting but blindly accept the conclusions they want to see from it and then presenting them as evidence.

The fundamental problem with gun violence in the USA is that it's a multi-generation problem to fix. The only way to fix it is to treat it as a problem with a timespan measured in decades or generations.


Something that would help many cases of gun violence? Make it a felony to possess a weapon that is secured improperly and used in gun violence. If your child shoots themselves because you are a terribad parent and leave a loaded weapon around the house? That's a felony on you as the owner.

A large percentage of gun related deaths are effectively the result of irresponsibility on the part of the gun owner.

Nearly 2/3 of gun related deaths are the result of suicide.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 29, 2018, 07:40:10 AM
Do we have to do this maths again?

15,586 gun deaths per year
x
85 years (your average age)
=
1,324,810 gun related deaths during your life time.

Yip you read that right, over a million fellow citizens will die due to gun related incidents, on US soil during your life time.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

Wow, that really puts things in perspective. I mean, again it's making the numbers seem really scary by making it over a million, but still.

Granted, in that same time frame over 223,000,000 people will die from other causes. Basically the entire united states will all die! 300,000 people will drown in that same time frame, not including those on boats.

As I said in my original post, using absolute numbers with enormous sample sizes is at best misleading, and at worst emotional manipulation.


I disagree.  There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives.  This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you  not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that.  No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

Let talk about this issue, not weather or not it is worse then cars.

4 people a day... first off that's way low, but you didn't know that. In a country of 300,000,000 people we need to be focusing on 4 people a day? If we start talking about everything that kills 4 people a day we're not gonna have time to eat because we'll be so busy. I mean, autoerotic asphyxiation kills about 2 people a day, does that make the cut? Falling out of bed kills 1.5.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 29, 2018, 07:41:02 AM
I disagree.  There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives.  This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you  not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that.  No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

Let talk about this issue, not weather or not it is worse then cars.

Did you even look at the link you pasted here?

It's a bit difficult to have any reasonable conversation with someone who takes a link that says something that fits the narrative they want to say and don't even understand the information it is presenting but blindly accept the conclusions they want to see from it and then presenting them as evidence.

The fundamental problem with gun violence in the USA is that it's a multi-generation problem to fix. The only way to fix it is to treat it as a problem with a timespan measured in decades or generations.


Something that would help many cases of gun violence? Make it a felony to possess a weapon that is secured improperly and used in gun violence. If your child shoots themselves because you are a terribad parent and leave a loaded weapon around the house? That's a felony on you as the owner.

A large percentage of gun related deaths are effectively the result of irresponsibility on the part of the gun owner.

Nearly 2/3 of gun related deaths are the result of suicide.

I think that is a fantastic ideal and one my wife even brought up exactly as you describe it. BUT, it's a bad time to talk about more sensible gun laws now and always, so it doesn't matter what you or I think. I say go even further and hold the parents accountable for murder.   
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dycker1978 on January 29, 2018, 07:42:47 AM
I disagree.  There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives.  This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you  not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that.  No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

Let talk about this issue, not weather or not it is worse then cars.

Did you even look at the link you pasted here?

It's a bit difficult to have any reasonable conversation with someone who takes a link that says something that fits the narrative they want to say and don't even understand the information it is presenting but blindly accept the conclusions they want to see from it and then presenting them as evidence.

The fundamental problem with gun violence in the USA is that it's a multi-generation problem to fix. The only way to fix it is to treat it as a problem with a timespan measured in decades or generations.


Something that would help many cases of gun violence? Make it a felony to possess a weapon that is secured improperly and used in gun violence. If your child shoots themselves because you are a terribad parent and leave a loaded weapon around the house? That's a felony on you as the owner.

A large percentage of gun related deaths are effectively the result of irresponsibility on the part of the gun owner.

Nearly 2/3 of gun related deaths are the result of suicide.

At least making it so you have to take responsibility for your weapons is a start.  If you leave your gun out, loaded and a child grabs it, and discharges it, you are a pad parent.  You should have some consequences to your actions. 

If nearly 2/3of gun related death is suicide, that also points to an issue with guns.  People now will say, well they would try it no matter guns or not.

The thing is, suicidal ideations often pass after a brief crisis moment.  Then that person can get help to avoid or deal with that crisis better in the future.  If a gun is the weapon of choice to end ones life, it will be fatal more often then not, not allowing any second chance.  This, to me, says even more, that at the very least, guns should be kept in a locked and secure location. 

I am not saying guns should be banned, just that a meaningful conversation should take place on how to limit the injury and death that they cause.  Will it ever be 100%?  No, of course not, but that doesn't mean we should not try and reduce.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dycker1978 on January 29, 2018, 07:45:34 AM
Do we have to do this maths again?

15,586 gun deaths per year
x
85 years (your average age)
=
1,324,810 gun related deaths during your life time.

Yip you read that right, over a million fellow citizens will die due to gun related incidents, on US soil during your life time.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

Wow, that really puts things in perspective. I mean, again it's making the numbers seem really scary by making it over a million, but still.

Granted, in that same time frame over 223,000,000 people will die from other causes. Basically the entire united states will all die! 300,000 people will drown in that same time frame, not including those on boats.

As I said in my original post, using absolute numbers with enormous sample sizes is at best misleading, and at worst emotional manipulation.


I disagree.  There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives.  This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you  not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that.  No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

Let talk about this issue, not weather or not it is worse then cars.

4 people a day... first off that's way low, but you didn't know that. In a country of 300,000,000 people we need to be focusing on 4 people a day? If we start talking about everything that kills 4 people a day we're not gonna have time to eat because we'll be so busy. I mean, autoerotic asphyxiation kills about 2 people a day, does that make the cut? Falling out of bed kills 1.5.
[/b]

How many people does terrorism kill in the US? out of 300 million people?  But yet we are trying to ban entire countries from entry.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 29, 2018, 07:49:15 AM
How many people does terrorism kill in the US? out of 300 million people?  But yet we are trying to ban entire countries from entry.

Yeah, which is a ridiculously stupid idea. Not gonna find any argument from me here. Don't even get me started on the wall or the TSA.

The common theme with all of those things is they are based on emotion (specifically fear) and a manipulation of statistics using absolute numbers in a huge sample size and graphic images to sound scary.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ender on January 29, 2018, 08:25:22 AM
I think that is a fantastic ideal and one my wife even brought up exactly as you describe it. BUT, it's a bad time to talk about more sensible gun laws now and always, so it doesn't matter what you or I think. I say go even further and hold the parents accountable for murder.

I don't actually think this is the case.

The problem with the "anti-gun" debate is that it is presented as an extreme. The arguments are never presented as "we want people to take more personal responsibility for their Constitutional rights" but rather "no guns."

I think that given the hyperbolic position that a lot of Democrats take on gun-control that their main obstacle in presenting this sort of legislation would be convincing Republicans they are actually serious.

The common theme with all of those things is they are based on emotion (specifically fear) and a manipulation of statistics using absolute numbers in a huge sample size and graphic images to sound scary.

This is a key problem in the gun debate, too.

Looking at the website dycker1978 linked, while it's hard to add all the data since they don't do summaries (>.>) it looks like 590  total mass shooting deaths in 2017, by their standards for mass shooting. Reducing all non-mass shooting gun deaths by roughly 2% will have more impact on overall gun violence than if every single one of those events didn't happen.

If the goal is reducing overall gun violence it seems focusing on relatively small wins in the very large categories (for example, reducing suicide rate by gun by 2.5% is also roughly 500 fewer gun deaths with the roughly 20000 gun suicides/year) will have as much of an impact as reducing mass shooting deaths by 90%..

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 29, 2018, 08:30:38 AM
I disagree.  There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives.  This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you  not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that.  No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

Let talk about this issue, not weather or not it is worse then cars.

Did you even look at the link you pasted here?

It's a bit difficult to have any reasonable conversation with someone who takes a link that says something that fits the narrative they want to say and don't even understand the information it is presenting but blindly accept the conclusions they want to see from it and then presenting them as evidence.

The fundamental problem with gun violence in the USA is that it's a multi-generation problem to fix. The only way to fix it is to treat it as a problem with a timespan measured in decades or generations.


Something that would help many cases of gun violence? Make it a felony to possess a weapon that is secured improperly and used in gun violence. If your child shoots themselves because you are a terribad parent and leave a loaded weapon around the house? That's a felony on you as the owner.

A large percentage of gun related deaths are effectively the result of irresponsibility on the part of the gun owner.

Nearly 2/3 of gun related deaths are the result of suicide.

At least making it so you have to take responsibility for your weapons is a start.  If you leave your gun out, loaded and a child grabs it, and discharges it, you are a pad parent.  You should have some consequences to your actions. 

If nearly 2/3of gun related death is suicide, that also points to an issue with guns.  People now will say, well they would try it no matter guns or not.

The thing is, suicidal ideations often pass after a brief crisis moment.  Then that person can get help to avoid or deal with that crisis better in the future.  If a gun is the weapon of choice to end ones life, it will be fatal more often then not, not allowing any second chance.  This, to me, says even more, that at the very least, guns should be kept in a locked and secure location. 

I am not saying guns should be banned, just that a meaningful conversation should take place on how to limit the injury and death that they cause.  Will it ever be 100%?  No, of course not, but that doesn't mean we should not try and reduce.

This reminded me of a show I watched some time ago. It was about those who jump off the Golden Gate Bridge to commit suicide. They interviewed a couple jumpers who actually survived the fall. I remember quite distinctly one of them saying that on his way down, all he could think about was how he had just made the dumbest decision of his life and wished he could take it back. Luckily he survived the fall, but was in pretty bad shape physically.   
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2018, 08:38:31 AM
The problem with the "anti-gun" debate is that it is presented as an extreme. The arguments are never presented as "we want people to take more personal responsibility for their Constitutional rights" but rather "no guns."

I disagree.  People who want gun control are almost never arguing for "no guns".

They're arguing for controls on who buys guns, restrictions on some types of guns, registration for gun owners, rules regarding safe storage of weapons, etc.  It's easy for your average person to buy a gun in Canada and Australia.  Yet these are commonly pointed to 'no gun' type countries with legislation that is railed against by gun advocates.  It's easy to buy a gun in Canada and Australia.  Yet these are the types of authoritarian 'no gun' type countries that are often railed against by gun advocates.

What the other side hears is 'no guns' but that's usually got nothing to do with the actual argument being put forward.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ender on January 29, 2018, 08:47:23 AM
I disagree.  People who want gun control are almost never arguing for "no guns".

A large gun related debate in the past years in the USA has been related to "assault weapons" (which expired early 2000s). Nearly every time a non-gang related mass shooting happens, this subject again becomes subject of the media/politicians (well, Democrats generally).

Perhaps the media is at fault for this, if it's not actually what they want, but the media sure makes it look like Democrats want bans on various types of guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2018, 08:50:35 AM
I disagree.  People who want gun control are almost never arguing for "no guns".

A large gun related debate in the past years in the USA has been related to "assault weapons" (which expired early 2000s). Nearly every time a non-gang related mass shooting happens, this subject again becomes subject of the media/politicians (well, Democrats generally).

Perhaps the media is at fault for this, if it's not actually what they want, but the media sure makes it look like Democrats want bans on various types of guns.

This is exactly what I was talking about.

What you appear to not like is the argument that some weapons should be restricted.  That's a far cry from arguing for 'no guns' in the US.  Yet, you equate the two.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ender on January 29, 2018, 09:01:25 AM
This is exactly what I was talking about.

What you appear to not like is the argument that some weapons should be restricted.  That's a far cry from arguing for 'no guns' in the US.  Yet, you equate the two.

Nah, the disagreement we have here is exactly the problem that exists in the entire gun debate.

The problem is the primary publicized gun policies that Democrats have effectively boil down to, "we want to make it much harder to get a very small set of guns that are a tiny percentage of the overall gun violence problem."

Rather than, "we want to make people take increased responsibility for their actions."

Another option for more reasonable legislation: make it so that anyone selling a gun to someone on the "no fly" list is responsible for actions that person takes within X days of them buying the gun.

In other words? Stop making sensationalistic legislation aimed at a relatively small percentage of the overall gun violence problem and start suggesting reasonable legislation that will make Republicans look foolish to not adopt. Because contrary to popular belief, most gun owners are reasonable.

The Republican party would burn a large amount of its political capital on the gun-control issue if they fight legislation aimed at simply increasing the personal responsibility of gun owners for their guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 29, 2018, 09:01:47 AM
I think that is a fantastic ideal and one my wife even brought up exactly as you describe it. BUT, it's a bad time to talk about more sensible gun laws now and always, so it doesn't matter what you or I think. I say go even further and hold the parents accountable for murder.

I don't actually think this is the case.

Except it's the exact case happening now. Immediately after Vegas it was a "bad time" to talk about sensible laws. Sense then, you know, in-between mass shootings, there was no discussion either. Feel free to browse back through Sander's press conferences after the Vegas shooting and most recently when asked about what's been done/discussed since. 

Quote
The problem with the "anti-gun" debate is that it is presented as an extreme. The arguments are never presented as "we want people to take more personal responsibility for their Constitutional rights" but rather "no guns."

No, the problem is your straw-man fallacy

Quote
I think that given the hyperbolic position that a lot of Democrats take on gun-control that their main obstacle in presenting this sort of legislation would be convincing Republicans they are actually serious.

Again, no! Poll after poll shows most Republicans do not want stricter gun laws and most Dems do. Notice the word "anti-gun" appears nowhere. Occasionally they find some common ground. But the whole "ahhhh Dems want to take away your guns" is an extreme position based on a straw-man fallacy.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ender on January 29, 2018, 09:18:11 AM
Except it's the exact case happening now. Immediately after Vegas it was a "bad time" to talk about sensible laws. Sense then, you know, in-between mass shootings, there was no discussion either. Feel free to browse back through Sander's press conferences after the Vegas shooting and most recently when asked about what's been done/discussed since. 

Ehhh.

Just look at what actually is proposed in most legislation around gun control. How many of the bills are even remotely related to increased personal responsibility for gun owners (vs making it harder to buy guns)?

Nearly all legislation and debate centers around making increased regulation for buying guns.


Quote
No, the problem is your straw-man fallacy

Then why is the entire debate often called "gun control" and not "gun responsibility?"

Is this skillful manipulation by the NRA to change the topic to be "control" and such associate the entire gun debate with governmental regulation?

I'm increasingly thinking the media (either solely or via NRA influence) are at fault for presenting the entire argument in this framework.


Quote
Again, no! Poll after poll shows most Republicans do not want stricter gun laws and most Dems do. Notice the word "anti-gun" appears nowhere. Occasionally they find some common ground. But the whole "ahhhh Dems want to take away your guns" is an extreme position based on a straw-man fallacy.

See, the problem is exactly what I've been saying - the legislation focuses around "control" rather than responsibility.

I would be shocked if a sizable percentage of Republicans would be opposed to increased personal responsibility for gun owners. For that matter, Democrats either (except I suspect they'd likely oppose legislation on this front as "not far enough" if Republicans proposed it).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 29, 2018, 09:18:34 AM
We literally have people in this very thread saying that the statistics and numbers don't matter "because children."

What do you think happens when we put the "reasonable restrictions" on guns and then a kid gets shot again? Do they say "well, we put reasonable restrictions so sometimes these things just happen"? Or "well it looks like that restriction didn't work very well, let's get rid of it and try something else"? Or do you think they'll go farther with the restrictions while not removing old ones? Again of course using very emotionally targeted ads of happy kids in a classroom with a masked man right outside about to burst in. 

You can look at the restrictions in a few states to see they are more concerned with making guns more difficult and inconvenient to get than they are with making sensible laws. Having a foregrip or a collapsible stock does not make a gun more deadly, but putting onerous restrictions on gun owners and manufacturers does make people less likely to buy them. California requires new technology implemented into pistols which hasn't ever been used successfully, thus defacto banning any new pistol designs. That regulation actually makes people less safe, as they can't get newly updated designs of pistols and are stuck with grandfathered versions.

The only way to completely stop any gun violence is to have no guns. If people have an "any gun violence is too much and action has to be taken" attitude, the end result is banning guns. Of course, when people still get shot I don't know what they'll go after next, but it doesn't really matter.

We live in the safest time we've ever had in the United States, and we've got people talking about making new legislation affecting millions of citizens based on 4 deaths a day (although the number is low, that's what they're basing it on). 4. Out of 300,000,000. We could reduce gun deaths by 90% and get it down to where it's actually 4 deaths a day, and people would still say it's too much as evidenced in this very conversation.

Are most democrats pushing for gun bans? No, not yet. I do find it hard to believe that once we get universal background checks and ban assault rifles they'll stop pushing for more regulations though, because people will still be killed using guns. They'll spin the story the exact same as the article that spawned this thread. 11 shootings in 26 days!

So maybe those of you in this thread can enlighten me. Let's say we implement every restriction you want, universal background checks, waiting periods, bans on semi autos, the works (not sure who wants what but those are common themes). Say we do all of that, and a year later a school is shot up and 5 kindergarteners are killed. Will you be satisfied with current restrictions, or will you push for more because kids getting killed is not ever acceptable?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2018, 09:20:46 AM
This is exactly what I was talking about.

What you appear to not like is the argument that some weapons should be restricted.  That's a far cry from arguing for 'no guns' in the US.  Yet, you equate the two.

Nah, the disagreement we have here is exactly the problem that exists in the entire gun debate.

The problem is the primary publicized gun policies that Democrats have effectively boil down to, "we want to make it much harder to get a very small set of guns that are a tiny percentage of the overall gun violence problem."

Rather than, "we want to make people take increased responsibility for their actions."

Another option for more reasonable legislation: make it so that anyone selling a gun to someone on the "no fly" list is responsible for actions that person takes within X days of them buying the gun.

In other words? Stop making sensationalistic legislation aimed at a relatively small percentage of the overall gun violence problem and start suggesting reasonable legislation that will make Republicans look foolish to not adopt. Because contrary to popular belief, most gun owners are reasonable.

The Republican party would burn a large amount of its political capital on the gun-control issue if they fight legislation aimed at simply increasing the personal responsibility of gun owners for their guns.

That's a perfectly reasonable stance to have.  It has nothing to do with anyone wanting 'no guns' though.  At any rate, I suspect that your proposition is doomed to failure due to the fact that it's illegal to keep digitized, easily searchable records of who owns what gun in the US.  This is a big roadblock to the tracing of who sells what guns to whom, and one reason that straw-man purchases are so common.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 29, 2018, 09:24:22 AM
Another option for more reasonable legislation: make it so that anyone selling a gun to someone on the "no fly" list is responsible for actions that person takes within X days of them buying the gun.

I don't think removing constitutional rights based on a list with no due process or oversight and an almost certain racial bias is a good idea. Very far from reasonable.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Parizade on January 29, 2018, 09:25:51 AM
The common theme with all of those things is they are based on emotion (specifically fear) and a manipulation of statistics using absolute numbers in a huge sample size and graphic images to sound scary.

I tend to agree, and the emotions are very much related to your background and upbringing. Hundreds of thousands of children sustain serious (and sometimes fatal) injuries from extracurricular sports, but if anyone tried to ban high school football I suspect the backlash of jock parents would rival NRA pro-gun activism. Similarly, if urban areas tried to make private vehicle ownership illegal and forced residents to rely on safer public transportation instead citizens would riot!

I grew up in a rural area where everyone had guns and learning to shoot was just a normal part of growing up. I currently live in an area without a police department, we must rely on the county sheriff for protection. Response time can be 30 minutes or more, so carrying a handgun is considered by many to be a civic duty. You are more likely to need protection from a rabid raccoon than a criminal, but a firearm is handy in either case.  Women in remote areas feel especially vulnerable, so ladies night at the gun range becomes an empowering experience. Banning gun ownership here sounds just as ridiculous as banning high school sports or private vehicle ownership would sound in the city.

People are much more willing to live with familiar dangers than they are willing to accept unfamiliar safety constraints.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2018, 09:33:27 AM
The common theme with all of those things is they are based on emotion (specifically fear) and a manipulation of statistics using absolute numbers in a huge sample size and graphic images to sound scary.

I tend to agree, and the emotions are very much related to your background and upbringing. Hundreds of thousands of children sustain serious (and sometimes fatal) injuries from extracurricular sports, but if anyone tried to ban high school football I suspect the backlash of jock parents would rival NRA pro-gun activism. Similarly, if urban areas tried to make private vehicle ownership illegal and forced residents to rely on safer public transportation instead citizens would riot!

So, to make the same point . . . again . . . Nobody has attempted to ban all guns.  They're arguing for controls on who buys guns, restrictions on some types of guns, registration for gun owners, rules regarding safe storage of weapons, etc.

Much the same way that there are rules regarding helmet use when playing high-school football.  Much the same way that private vehicle use is heavily regulated.


I grew up in a rural area where everyone had guns and learning to shoot was just a normal part of growing up.

So did I.  But I grew up in Canada, where a normal part of learning to shoot was getting your license and learning how to safely store a firearm.


I currently live in an area without a police department, we must rely on the county sheriff for protection. Response time can be 30 minutes or more, so carrying a handgun is considered by many to be a civic duty. You are more likely to need protection from a rabid raccoon than a criminal, but a firearm is handy in either case.  Women in remote areas feel especially vulnerable, so ladies night at the gun range becomes an empowering experience. Banning gun ownership here sounds just as ridiculous as banning high school sports or private vehicle ownership would sound in the city.

Yet again, nobody has attempted to ban all guns.  They're arguing for controls on who buys guns, restrictions on some types of guns, registration for gun owners, rules regarding safe storage of weapons, etc.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ender on January 29, 2018, 09:36:32 AM
That's a perfectly reasonable stance to have.  It has nothing to do with anyone wanting 'no guns' though.  At any rate, I suspect that your proposition is doomed to failure due to the fact that it's illegal to keep digitized, easily searchable records of who owns what gun in the US.  This is a big roadblock to the tracing of who sells what guns to whom, and one reason that straw-man purchases are so common.

I think it'd be far more likely to see that changed if those selling guns (at least "real" sellers via gun shows, etc, not sure how to handle private sales, but one step at a time) were legally liable for any acts committed with that gun within a period of time after the sale if the person they sold to was not supposed to have purchased a gun because of available information.

Because then it'd be in their interest to actually have that sort of information meaningfully available. Right now, the only interest is coming from an external source (ie proposed legislation).

That's again why I think focusing on personal responsibility for both gun owners and sellers, particularly vendors, is the key to actually making change happen.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 29, 2018, 09:40:21 AM

See, the problem is exactly what I've been saying - the legislation focuses around "control" rather than responsibility.


It appears you keep focusing on the wrong things:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/word-choice-and-gun-culture/423108/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/word-choice-and-gun-culture/423108/) 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 29, 2018, 09:41:05 AM
That's a perfectly reasonable stance to have.  It has nothing to do with anyone wanting 'no guns' though.  At any rate, I suspect that your proposition is doomed to failure due to the fact that it's illegal to keep digitized, easily searchable records of who owns what gun in the US.  This is a big roadblock to the tracing of who sells what guns to whom, and one reason that straw-man purchases are so common.

I think it'd be far more likely to see that changed if those selling guns (at least "real" sellers via gun shows, etc, not sure how to handle private sales, but one step at a time) were legally liable for any acts committed with that gun within a period of time after the sale if the person they sold to was not supposed to have purchased a gun because of available information.

Because then it'd be in their interest to actually have that sort of information meaningfully available. Right now, the only interest is coming from an external source (ie proposed legislation).

That's again why I think focusing on personal responsibility for both gun owners and sellers, particularly vendors, is the key to actually making change happen.

Selling to a prohibited person is already punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and the person doesn't even have to do anything with it. It's already in their interest to not sell to prohibited persons.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2018, 09:48:42 AM
That's a perfectly reasonable stance to have.  It has nothing to do with anyone wanting 'no guns' though.  At any rate, I suspect that your proposition is doomed to failure due to the fact that it's illegal to keep digitized, easily searchable records of who owns what gun in the US.  This is a big roadblock to the tracing of who sells what guns to whom, and one reason that straw-man purchases are so common.

I think it'd be far more likely to see that changed if those selling guns (at least "real" sellers via gun shows, etc, not sure how to handle private sales, but one step at a time) were legally liable for any acts committed with that gun within a period of time after the sale if the person they sold to was not supposed to have purchased a gun because of available information.

Because then it'd be in their interest to actually have that sort of information meaningfully available. Right now, the only interest is coming from an external source (ie proposed legislation).

That's again why I think focusing on personal responsibility for both gun owners and sellers, particularly vendors, is the key to actually making change happen.

Private sales are an intentional free-for-all in most states.  Attempting to change those rules will be met with tremendous resistance because gun owners don't want to take personal responsibility for what happens with their guns.  That's why I don't share your optimism that this proposition would have any real support from gun advocates.



Selling to a prohibited person is already punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and the person doesn't even have to do anything with it. It's already in their interest to not sell to prohibited persons.

This is intentionally dishonest.  Background checks are not required in the vast majority of states for private sales.  It is virtually impossible to prosecute or punish someone for a private sale in a state that doesn't require a background check or even ID before making a sale.  It is a good example of how gun advocates will fight tooth and nail (starting with disinformation) to avoid anything that would increase their personal responsibility though.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ender on January 29, 2018, 09:49:26 AM

See, the problem is exactly what I've been saying - the legislation focuses around "control" rather than responsibility.


It appears you keep focusing on the wrong things:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/word-choice-and-gun-culture/423108/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/word-choice-and-gun-culture/423108/)

yawn.

Quote
Is this skillful manipulation by the NRA to change the topic to be "control" and such associate the entire gun debate with governmental regulation?

I'm increasingly thinking the media (either solely or via NRA influence) are at fault for presenting the entire argument in this framework.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 29, 2018, 09:53:30 AM
This is intentionally dishonest.  Background checks are not required in the vast majority of states for private sales.  It is virtually impossible to prosecute or punish someone for a private sale in a state that doesn't require a background check or even ID before making a sale.  It is a good example of how gun advocates will fight tooth and nail (starting with disinformation) to avoid anything that would increase their personal responsibility though.

Look at the quote I was responding to.

I think it'd be far more likely to see that changed if those selling guns (at least "real" sellers via gun shows, etc, not sure how to handle private sales, but one step at a time)

Private sales are a whole other ballgame, and that problem comes down to logistics of actually doing it. Simply changing a law isn't going to help that at all.

It requires registration and home inspections at a minimum to enforce, both of which have their own issues and debates. In any case, the quote I responded to specifically called out "real" sellers, so that's what I was talking about as well.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Parizade on January 29, 2018, 11:01:14 AM
Yet again, nobody has attempted to ban all guns.  They're arguing for controls on who buys guns, restrictions on some types of guns, registration for gun owners, rules regarding safe storage of weapons, etc.

There are plenty of  gun control laws currently on the books, so many that police can't possibly enforce them all. I'm skeptical that passing more laws will have any affect. I would focus more on helping police enforce the most pertinent existing laws. For example, ensuring that people convicted of domestic violence don't possess firearms. Enforcing this law alone would have prevented a number of mass shootings
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mass-shooters-domestic-violence_us_5a0376e7e4b0937b510f5fdd (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mass-shooters-domestic-violence_us_5a0376e7e4b0937b510f5fdd)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2018, 11:14:41 AM
Yet again, nobody has attempted to ban all guns.  They're arguing for controls on who buys guns, restrictions on some types of guns, registration for gun owners, rules regarding safe storage of weapons, etc.

There are plenty of  gun control laws currently on the books, so many that police can't possibly enforce them all. I'm skeptical that passing more laws will have any affect. I would focus more on helping police enforce the most pertinent existing laws. For example, ensuring that people convicted of domestic violence don't possess firearms. Enforcing this law alone would have prevented a number of mass shootings
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mass-shooters-domestic-violence_us_5a0376e7e4b0937b510f5fdd (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mass-shooters-domestic-violence_us_5a0376e7e4b0937b510f5fdd)

How do you prevent a person convicted of domestic violence from buying a gun via private sale?  How do you effectively prosecute people who sell to criminals when hamstrung by laws that prevent quickly checking via digital means who has sold what gun to whom?

I'm all for enforcing laws that currently exist.  Unfortunately, there are structural roadblocks in the way when you attempt to do that.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Parizade on January 29, 2018, 11:23:44 AM
How do you prevent a person convicted of domestic violence from buying a gun via private sale? 

My point exactly. If we can't figure out how to enforce one simple gun control law that pretty much everyone agrees on how can we enforce new laws? 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on January 29, 2018, 11:31:35 AM
There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2018, 11:51:05 AM
There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dycker1978 on January 29, 2018, 11:56:17 AM
There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

The is one of two arguments I see most... I might not like the end, so I am not going to start.

How do you prevent a person convicted of domestic violence from buying a gun via private sale? 

My point exactly. If we can't figure out how to enforce one simple gun control law that pretty much everyone agrees on how can we enforce new laws? 

This is the other one... we can enforce the laws we have... 

We need to start enforcing the laws on the books, and making new/better ones if we need to.

As far as not liking the laws, they are to better society as a whole, not one person.  Unfortunately they wont be liked by everyone.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 29, 2018, 12:03:25 PM
How do you prevent a person convicted of domestic violence from buying a gun via private sale? 

My point exactly. If we can't figure out how to enforce one simple gun control law that pretty much everyone agrees on how can we enforce new laws? 

This is the other one... we can enforce the laws we have... 

We need to start enforcing the laws on the books, and making new/better ones if we need to.

As far as not liking the laws, they are to better society as a whole, not one person.  Unfortunately they wont be liked by everyone.

It is a great argument for having precisely no laws though.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 29, 2018, 12:06:58 PM
The is one of two arguments I see most... I might not like the end, so I am not going to start.

I'm not sure if you've seen the various other gun control threads, but this is brought up all the time. The reason many pro-gun folks are hesitant to "compromise" on current laws is because the compromise goes in only one direction, more regulation.

When we have numerous laws about the cosmetics of firearms, or how many parts on it are made in what country, that shows us the lawmakers are more concerned with making firearms a pain in the ass to get than they are with public safety. Somehow the laws on what sort of foregrip you can have never get repealed despite them being ridiculous to anyone who thinks about it for more than 30 seconds. Get rid of some of the silly laws to show you're actually concerned about safety and we can talk about laws that may actually help.


Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Parizade on January 29, 2018, 12:15:34 PM
We need to start enforcing the laws on the books

I agree completely. If we could enforce the current federal laws gun violence would drop dramatically

Quote
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL LAW
Federal law establishes the baseline regarding the types of persons who are ineligible to purchase firearms. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922, generally prohibits the sale of firearms to any person who:

Has been convicted of, or is under indictment for, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance;
Is underage;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
Is unlawfully in the United States or has been admitted to the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa;
Has been dishonorably discharged from the military;
Has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order restraining him or her from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner, his or her child or a child of a partner, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; or
Has been convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence.

(quote from Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/categories-of-prohibited-people/ (http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/categories-of-prohibited-people/)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2018, 12:29:20 PM
This isn't a matter of give and take.  Gun advocates have won - wholesale.  Anyone can buy a gun without hassle in most states, without a background check or even a valid form of ID.  It's extremely difficult to look up the sales history of a weapon . . . and even if you manage to jump through all the loopholes, that history ends the moment there's a private sale.  The idea of registering or needing a license for a gun is an anathema.  As ooeei has pointed out, even very minimal attempts to control firearms has been a total failure.  Every part of this is a total win for gun advocates.

It is a mistake to expect that gun advocates will ever support any form of compromise (even for common sense reasons - assuming you could get anybody to agree on what those are).  They've never had to in the past, they will continue to refuse to in the future . . . and this mindset gave them the win.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on January 29, 2018, 12:36:13 PM
There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

Yes, and I believe most gun owners think the same way. The window for gun control closed precisely because there were pro-gun control types gleefully and publicly anticipating total bans.

Another reason the gun control window is closed for the foreseeable future is that the issue became a left wing dog whistle for hate of heartland Americans.

I'm simply saying gun control advocate bungled the issue badly 2-3 decades ago, and the issue is a loser for liberals outside of their own constituency.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2018, 12:57:19 PM
There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

Yes, and I believe most gun owners think the same way. The window for gun control closed precisely because there were pro-gun control types gleefully and publicly anticipating total bans.

Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States?  To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on January 29, 2018, 01:59:14 PM
There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

Yes, and I believe most gun owners think the same way. The window for gun control closed precisely because there were pro-gun control types gleefully and publicly anticipating total bans.

Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States?  To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

There have been localities that have tried to ban firearms and states that seem to be pretty open to it.  I suspect it wouldn't be hard to find some senators and definitely some representatives that were open about their hopes of actually abolishing the 2nd amendment and/or prohibiting firearm ownership by private citizens.  Not that this isn't a straw man argument you are throwing at the previous poster, but depending on your definition of US politician, it's pretty easily rebutted. 

The real problem with getting gun control passed is that most measures are either explicitly nonsensical (such as banning guns based on cosmetic appearances) or they burden legal owners without presenting much of an obstacle to criminals, or they are using gun control to feel like they are "doing something" while avoiding a much more difficult question (i.e., how to stop mass killings by mentally ill and/or extremely troubled individuals without greatly curtailing the liberty of the mentally ill and/or just odd people who would never hurt anybody). 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on January 29, 2018, 03:30:24 PM
There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

Yes, and I believe most gun owners think the same way. The window for gun control closed precisely because there were pro-gun control types gleefully and publicly anticipating total bans.

Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States?  To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

I'm not aware of any politicians explicitly calling for a ban, but Hillary, BHO, and Schumer have all praised system of gun control like Australia has. Those are just the politicians who have to be a little careful about what they say. There's plenty of antigun activist who have been much more pointed.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 29, 2018, 03:44:22 PM
Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States?  To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

Dianne Feinstein is currently serving as a US Senator for the state of California. She opened the inaugural ceremony for Pres Obama and sits on several Senate committees. Needless to say, she is an immensely powerful and important politician in the US.

Here is what she said not that long ago.  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_LaBJvI0BI)

As others have pointed out, politicians in favor of "common sense gun safety" or whatever the branding is, while they typically pay lip service to the idea of the right to use guns, often praise gun confiscation and strict local measures, not to mention piecemeal encroachments of the right to use guns. Simply put, if you want to ban black synthetic rifles, "large" magazines, concealed carry and others, you don't support gun rights and there's no point in saying that you do. (Note that I have not attacked the generalized idea of background checks or licensing.)

And then you have things like Massachussets' impending ban on bump stocks. (http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/turn_in_bump_stocks_before_ban.html) Dozens or hundreds of people have a device which is explicitly legal (per ATF letters) and are threatened with life imprisonment if they do not turn them in within the next week or so. This is a device which has been used in only a handful of crimes and which only exists because there is no legal process for a citizen to buy an actual select fire rifle, and in one week, the punishment for owning one will be more severe than the punishment for rape.

So of course people don't want gun registration... they're concerned about eventually being criminalized and imprisoned. I'm not even a gun owner and this concerns me. Imagine if we were to do the same thing on marijuana. People would, and rightly so, flip out.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 29, 2018, 04:12:20 PM
Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States?  To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

Dianne Feinstein is currently serving as a US Senator for the state of California. She opened the inaugural ceremony for Pres Obama and sits on several Senate committees. Needless to say, she is an immensely powerful and important politician in the US.

Here is what she said not that long ago.  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_LaBJvI0BI)

You must have missed the bolded part.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/08/chris-cox/nras-chris-cox-falsely-says-dianne-feinstein-wante/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/08/chris-cox/nras-chris-cox-falsely-says-dianne-feinstein-wante/)

This thread itself, like may other "gun" threads before it, is ripe with irony. Everyone has their own version of why we shouldn't/can't have any discussions about common sense gun laws.  People will come up with any excuse to defer the discussion. "Now is not the time," "Dems want to take away all the guns," "The stats don't warrant a discussion," "I want some laws revoked before I concede to more laws," "Stop using the phrase "gun control"," we can't enforce existing laws." All of these excuses are quite frankly bullshit and all the real reasons why there is no logical, sensible discussion.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should have an asterisk next to it with a footnote that reads "Unless infringing on my right to own a gun," because obviously it's more important.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 29, 2018, 04:30:33 PM
I stand corrected!

With that said, anyone who wants to ban or restrict "assault weapons" is almost certainly not well informed about firearms. I used to not be a fan of assault weapons until I had a look at this video in particular. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0)

And as far as specific gun control measures go, branding them common sense does not exempt them from analysis and debate. Some gun control measures, like universal background checks or licensing, do merit debate and should be seriously considered. Other ideas, like national concealed carry, also merit debate. Extremist or useless positions, such as banning assault weapons, are non-starters and not worth debating.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2018, 05:36:18 PM
There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

Yes, and I believe most gun owners think the same way. The window for gun control closed precisely because there were pro-gun control types gleefully and publicly anticipating total bans.

Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States?  To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

I'm not aware of any politicians explicitly calling for a ban, but Hillary, BHO, and Schumer have all praised system of gun control like Australia has. Those are just the politicians who have to be a little careful about what they say. There's plenty of antigun activist who have been much more pointed.
There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

Yes, and I believe most gun owners think the same way. The window for gun control closed precisely because there were pro-gun control types gleefully and publicly anticipating total bans.

Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States?  To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

I'm not aware of any politicians explicitly calling for a ban, but Hillary, BHO, and Schumer have all praised system of gun control like Australia has. Those are just the politicians who have to be a little careful about what they say. There's plenty of antigun activist who have been much more pointed.

Australia doesn't have a gun ban, and has never had a gun ban.  It's not terribly hard to buy a gun there.

Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States?  To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

Dianne Feinstein is currently serving as a US Senator for the state of California. She opened the inaugural ceremony for Pres Obama and sits on several Senate committees. Needless to say, she is an immensely powerful and important politician in the US.

Here is what she said not that long ago.  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_LaBJvI0BI)

As others have pointed out, politicians in favor of "common sense gun safety" or whatever the branding is, while they typically pay lip service to the idea of the right to use guns, often praise gun confiscation and strict local measures, not to mention piecemeal encroachments of the right to use guns. Simply put, if you want to ban black synthetic rifles, "large" magazines, concealed carry and others, you don't support gun rights and there's no point in saying that you do. (Note that I have not attacked the generalized idea of background checks or licensing.)

And then you have things like Massachussets' impending ban on bump stocks. (http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/turn_in_bump_stocks_before_ban.html) Dozens or hundreds of people have a device which is explicitly legal (per ATF letters) and are threatened with life imprisonment if they do not turn them in within the next week or so. This is a device which has been used in only a handful of crimes and which only exists because there is no legal process for a citizen to buy an actual select fire rifle, and in one week, the punishment for owning one will be more severe than the punishment for rape.

So of course people don't want gun registration... they're concerned about eventually being criminalized and imprisoned. I'm not even a gun owner and this concerns me. Imagine if we were to do the same thing on marijuana. People would, and rightly so, flip out.

Yep, an NRA talking point misquote and a regulation.  Neither of which are remotely close to a ban on all firearms. . . Because nobody is now, nor ever has been coming for your guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on January 29, 2018, 06:02:15 PM
GuitarStv, these are the sorts of semantic games that will make gun owners oppose new legislation for all time.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on January 29, 2018, 06:09:23 PM
I think what all you bleeding heart liberals fail to realize is that it's hella fun to shoot stuff and pretend that we're gonna get us some bad guys. So what if a few thousand children have to die. Bang bang! In my dreams, I got you bad guy! Bang bang bang! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

In all seriousness, I talked about this a little bit in my journal, but White Trash love guns because we really hope that someday we'll have an excuse to kill someone and get away with it. It's always on our minds. Some guys are just too impatient to wait for a legal excuse. Sad, but truth.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Indexer on January 29, 2018, 06:30:40 PM
Jumping in a bit late here.

It sounds like both sides, for the most part, agree that universal background checks make sense. Which aligns with 80-90% of the American people. Why can't we have a healthy conversation about that, and as a country actually implement it?


For context: I am a responsible gun owner. Most responsible gun owners I know want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 29, 2018, 07:21:35 PM
Yep, an NRA talking point misquote and a regulation.  Neither of which are remotely close to a ban on all firearms. . . Because nobody is now, nor ever has been coming for your guns.

Would like to emphasize, I'm not a gun owner and I never have been. I don't even like shooting most guns.

Anyway, I admitted that I was mistaken about the Feinstein quote. But it does seem very, very strange to say that no one is coming for your guns when an extremely powerful serving Democratic Senator admitted that she wanted to come for some of your guns and Massachusetts is days away from coming for some of your gun accessories. I mean technically Feinstein didn't want to come for all of your guns, but she did want to come for some of them.

Why would a gun owner take it simply as a matter of faith that all of his/her guns and accessories, to include AR-15s with 30 round magazines, are not in any kind of jeopardy? To be frank, the only thing that keeps such weapons legally untouchable is persistent political activism.

I think what all you bleeding heart liberals fail to realize is that it's hella fun to shoot stuff and pretend that we're gonna get us some bad guys. So what if a few thousand children have to die. Bang bang! In my dreams, I got you bad guy! Bang bang bang! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

In all seriousness, I talked about this a little bit in my journal, but White Trash love guns because we really hope that someday we'll have an excuse to kill someone and get away with it. It's always on our minds. Some guys are just too impatient to wait for a legal excuse. Sad, but truth.

Assuming that's directed in any way at me... I'm not white, or from a lower socio-economic class. I also think racism and classism are very wrong.

Jumping in a bit late here.

It sounds like both sides, for the most part, agree that universal background checks make sense. Which aligns with 80-90% of the American people. Why can't we have a healthy conversation about that, and as a country actually implement it?


For context: I am a responsible gun owner. Most responsible gun owners I know want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

That's a good question... I would have said frustration and deep-seated political polarization and mistrust, but it looks like the Air Force (and by extension, probably the whole of the DoD) is reviewing why they don't report military justice convictions to the FBI. This maneuver has gotten the blessing of the Vice President and has not been opposed by any gun rights group that I am aware of.

The more I think about it though, the more it seems that it does come back to frustration. Why should you want to negotiate and compromise with people who don't have any patience for your concerns?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Indexer on January 29, 2018, 08:49:14 PM
Would like to emphasize, I'm not a gun owner and I never have been. I don't even like shooting most guns.

Anyway, I admitted that I was mistaken about the Feinstein quote. But it does seem very, very strange to say that no one is coming for your guns when an extremely powerful serving Democratic Senator admitted that she wanted to come for some of your guns and Massachusetts is days away from coming for some of your gun accessories. I mean technically Feinstein didn't want to come for all of your guns, but she did want to come for some of them.

Why would a gun owner take it simply as a matter of faith that all of his/her guns and accessories, to include AR-15s with 30 round magazines, are not in any kind of jeopardy? To be frank, the only thing that keeps such weapons legally untouchable is persistent political activism.

Gray, I agree with you on several points, but please drop the argument that Mass. banning bump stocks equates to them coming for our guns.

Bump stocks aren't some minor accessory like a flashlight or a grip. They increase the rate of fire well beyond the rate at which you could pull the trigger. It's a gun accessory specifically designed to skirt the intention of the law while not technically breaking the law. Fully automatic weapons are illegal. Modifying a weapon to fire fully automatic is illegal. The ATF initially allowed bump stocks because they don't mechanically meet the definition of a fully automatic weapon. Full auto means 1 trigger pull, multiple bullets. Bump stocks mechanically move the trigger against your finger so the trigger is being pulled multiple times even though you aren't moving your finger. The ATF is reviewing bump stocks with the intention of classifying them as a fully automatic modification, which would ban them in all 50 states. By the way, other states have banned bump stocks and are ordering their surrender. Even Chris Christie, a Republican, signed a bill banning them in New Jersey. I feel siding with bump stocks actually hurts the rest of your argument.

Going back to banning assault weapons; I'll agree that they were banned based on cosmetics and that is stupid. A semi automatic rifle chambered in .762 that looks like an AK-47 isn't a machine gun just because it looks like one. It still fires one round when you pull the trigger. However, if someone used a bump stock to convert a .762 semi-automatic rifle to fire 600 rounds per minute how would that be different than a fully automatic AK-47 which also fires 600 rounds per minute? If the full auto is illegal then shouldn't a similar gun converted to fire at the same rate of fire also be illegal?


Source for rate of fire stats for bump stocks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_fire

Quote
That's a good question... I would have said frustration and deep-seated political polarization and mistrust, but it looks like the Air Force (and by extension, probably the whole of the DoD) is reviewing why they don't report military justice convictions to the FBI. This maneuver has gotten the blessing of the Vice President and has not been opposed by any gun rights group that I am aware of.

The more I think about it though, the more it seems that it does come back to frustration. Why should you want to negotiate and compromise with people who don't have any patience for your concerns?

There are a lot of disagreements. However, there are a few items, specifically background checks, that most people agree on. People are dying and 80-90% of the country agrees on background checks. Seems pretty simple to enact. To do that people have to drop the arguments that get in the way.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 29, 2018, 09:01:34 PM
I agree that it's surprising that bump stocks don't meet the definition of a machinegun. With that said, the ATF has specifically said that they don't meet the definition of a machinegun (http://www.slidefire.com/files/BATFE.pdf) so for them to reverse that decision now would be extraordinary. (Not to mention you can bump fire with a belt loop, or simply your shoulder with some practice.)

Imagine that there was some other device out there that was legally iffy, and you asked the government if it's legal and they said yes, and then they later changed their minds about it and threatened you with decades in prison or hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines if you don't give yours up. This sort of arbitrary decision making by the state, with life changing ramifications for the population, is tyrannical. It would be as bad as if the federal government, after years of turning a blind eye to states that legalize marijuana, were to suddenly and aggressively prosecute marijuana vendors/owners--except the federal government has never legalized marijuana.

And the only reason bump stocks exist is because there is practically no legal process to buy a full auto or select fire gun. To be clear, I think that people should be allowed to buy full auto guns at market prices, with sufficient licensing and training. The right to bear arms does not exist if you can't buy the military/militia standard style of small arms.

I agree that universal background checks should be the law of the land.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Parizade on January 30, 2018, 06:16:34 AM
Jumping in a bit late here.

It sounds like both sides, for the most part, agree that universal background checks make sense. Which aligns with 80-90% of the American people. Why can't we have a healthy conversation about that, and as a country actually implement it?

For context: I am a responsible gun owner. Most responsible gun owners I know want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Establishing the kind of database necessary for background checks is just as frightening to liberals as it is to gun owners, and with good reason.

Effective background checks require a massive database that includes very sensitive mental health information on every citizen of the USA. This information is considered Protected Health Information (PHI) so putting it into a database that can be accessed by any cashier that might sell guns or ammo is problematic.

Enforcing current federal law would also require that database to contain enough information to verify citizenship. That opens a whole other can of worms around human rights for illegal aliens and "dreamers"

Then there's drug addiction, military background, domestic violence, and criminal history. You have to get that information on every single citizen in the USA, store it, verify it's accuracy, ensure it gets updated regularly, etc.

Then there's private sales, so anyone who wants to sell the little 22 they used as a cub scout to their neighbor whose son is working on a marksmanship badge has to be able to access that database too. The database that has all of your personal information in it.

This is no simple task, it won't be cheap, and it is fraught with opportunities for abuse.

Finally, the laws that make such a database possible must be voted in. Can you imagine any elected official who would agree to have all their own personal information in that database? I can't.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 30, 2018, 06:20:40 AM
Australia doesn't have a gun ban, and has never had a gun ban.  It's not terribly hard to buy a gun there.

Well now we're just balls deep in semantics. Australia has a ban on numerous types of guns, but yeah you're technically right not all of them. You're allowed to have pump shotguns or a semi-auto 22 if you're a farmer or a clay target shooter. As far as America is concerned Australia has a gun ban, because well over half of the guns in the US would become illegal overnight if we instituted their laws.

"Nobody is calling for a gun ban, just a ban on the most popular types of guns while allowing a select few .22s and shotguns. Why are you people who own guns that will become illegal and be confiscated if we take on their rules so reluctant to take on their rules? Again, not a ban on all guns, just the ones you guys like, very mild and common sense."

It's like saying my house doesn't have a cake ban. Sure you aren't allowed to have 99% of cakes, but you can have one small piece of spongecake once a year if you give me a written essay explaining why you deserve it and I approve it. No cake ban here though, nobody is talking about a cake ban. Your right to have cake is still very much intact.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 30, 2018, 07:41:43 AM
Jumping in a bit late here.

It sounds like both sides, for the most part, agree that universal background checks make sense. Which aligns with 80-90% of the American people. Why can't we have a healthy conversation about that, and as a country actually implement it?

For context: I am a responsible gun owner. Most responsible gun owners I know want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Establishing the kind of database necessary for background checks is just as frightening to liberals as it is to gun owners, and with good reason.

Effective background checks require a massive database that includes very sensitive mental health information on every citizen of the USA. This information is considered Protected Health Information (PHI) so putting it into a database that can be accessed by any cashier that might sell guns or ammo is problematic.

Enforcing current federal law would also require that database to contain enough information to verify citizenship. That opens a whole other can of worms around human rights for illegal aliens and "dreamers"

Then there's drug addiction, military background, domestic violence, and criminal history. You have to get that information on every single citizen in the USA, store it, verify it's accuracy, ensure it gets updated regularly, etc.

Then there's private sales, so anyone who wants to sell the little 22 they used as a cub scout to their neighbor whose son is working on a marksmanship badge has to be able to access that database too. The database that has all of your personal information in it.

This is no simple task, it won't be cheap, and it is fraught with opportunities for abuse.

Finally, the laws that make such a database possible must be voted in. Can you imagine any elected official who would agree to have all their own personal information in that database? I can't.

Hmm, it's as if most if not all those records are already kept in various databases. Weird! You might also find it strange that well over 85% of folks support expanding background checks as well as 72% of NRA members.

BTW, there is no such thing as a marksmanship badge. It was discontinued in 1966 and replace by the Rifle and Shotgun Shooting which itself was discontinued in 1987. Now it's simply called Rifle Shooting merit badge which can be accomplished with an Air BB or Pellet Rifle. Sure you can use a 22 as well but it's not necessary. Also these are Boy Scouts, not Cub Scouts. Cub Scouts are elementary school age. My son's troop visits the shooting rang every year at Summer Camp to work on their Merit Badge and not a single one of them owns a 22. I enjoy watching and helping them.

But yes it would be a pain in the butt to sell a gun to your teenage Boy Scout neighbor. Much like it's a pain in the butt to sell a car to your teenage neighbor. Filling out paperwork, registering it, paying taxes on it, standing in line at the BMV, etc. A gun purchase between 2 people should be just as painful to transact and it doesn't make any sense why it isn't. I am all for it!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on January 30, 2018, 07:56:16 AM
Jumping in a bit late here.

It sounds like both sides, for the most part, agree that universal background checks make sense. Which aligns with 80-90% of the American people. Why can't we have a healthy conversation about that, and as a country actually implement it?

For context: I am a responsible gun owner. Most responsible gun owners I know want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Establishing the kind of database necessary for background checks is just as frightening to liberals as it is to gun owners, and with good reason.

Effective background checks require a massive database that includes very sensitive mental health information on every citizen of the USA. This information is considered Protected Health Information (PHI) so putting it into a database that can be accessed by any cashier that might sell guns or ammo is problematic.

Enforcing current federal law would also require that database to contain enough information to verify citizenship. That opens a whole other can of worms around human rights for illegal aliens and "dreamers"

Then there's drug addiction, military background, domestic violence, and criminal history. You have to get that information on every single citizen in the USA, store it, verify it's accuracy, ensure it gets updated regularly, etc.

Then there's private sales, so anyone who wants to sell the little 22 they used as a cub scout to their neighbor whose son is working on a marksmanship badge has to be able to access that database too. The database that has all of your personal information in it.

This is no simple task, it won't be cheap, and it is fraught with opportunities for abuse.

Finally, the laws that make such a database possible must be voted in. Can you imagine any elected official who would agree to have all their own personal information in that database? I can't.

Oregon requires background checks... had to do one check to buy two handguns one time. Took about 15 minutes to get approved, in the meantime I found the ammunition I needed, a holster. No problem. Oregon goes too far in criminalizing some aspects of private transfers and defining the law vaguely, but I think the premise is reasonable.

Now, if we go the route of a nation wide background check, I'd like to see some verbiage about timely approval. That way, no future politicians can gut the staffing of the background check agency and effectively outlaw guns by making it take 120 days to get an approval.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 30, 2018, 08:13:24 AM
GuitarStv, these are the sorts of semantic games that will make gun owners oppose new legislation for all time.

You've already said that as a gun advocate you oppose all new legislation related to guns regardless of whether it makes sense.  This new statement isn't much of a threat then, is it?



Australia doesn't have a gun ban, and has never had a gun ban.  It's not terribly hard to buy a gun there.

Well now we're just balls deep in semantics. Australia has a ban on numerous types of guns, but yeah you're technically right not all of them. You're allowed to have pump shotguns or a semi-auto 22 if you're a farmer or a clay target shooter. As far as America is concerned Australia has a gun ban, because well over half of the guns in the US would become illegal overnight if we instituted their laws.

"Nobody is calling for a gun ban, just a ban on the most popular types of guns while allowing a select few .22s and shotguns. Why are you people who own guns that will become illegal and be confiscated if we take on their rules so reluctant to take on their rules? Again, not a ban on all guns, just the ones you guys like, very mild and common sense."

It's like saying my house doesn't have a cake ban. Sure you aren't allowed to have 99% of cakes, but you can have one small piece of spongecake once a year if you give me a written essay explaining why you deserve it and I approve it. No cake ban here though, nobody is talking about a cake ban. Your right to have cake is still very much intact.


The semantics are important in this case, where one side of the debate is deliberately being dishonest.  Despite the many times it has been claimed in this thread, there has never been a push to ban all guns in the US.  Near as I've been able to find, there hasn't even been a single politician who said that he or she wanted to ban all guns in the US.  Despite this, the claim is regularly made by gun advocates.  It is false.  Please stop making it.

I agree with you ooeei that when gun specific restrictions are implemented they do restrict certain types of guns.  Australia restricted usage of semi-automatic rifles for example, and these make up 20% of the guns owned in the US (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview)).  I'm not saying that Australia's solution is the best one for the US.  You can certainly argue about what measures are more sensible in your country.  What you can't do is lie about what happened in Australia.  If you do, I'm going to point it out.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 30, 2018, 08:45:21 AM
The semantics are important in this case, where one side of the debate is deliberately being dishonest.  Despite the many times it has been claimed in this thread, there has never been a push to ban all guns in the US.  Near as I've been able to find, there hasn't even been a single politician who said that he or she wanted to ban all guns in the US.  Despite this, the claim is regularly made by gun advocates.  It is false.  Please stop making it.

You're correct, there hasn't been a push for banning all guns.

Then again, pushing to ban a giant class of firearms which are some of the most used and most applicable for both self defense and sporting is not even close to uncommon.

To give another fictional example, we're not pushing to ban soft drinks, and never have. We simply want to restrict all coke and pepsi products from regular sale, and allow only generic lemon lime or orange soda to be sold in specialized stores that require a written application and an approved reason to purchase them. Note that "enjoying the taste" is not an approved reason. Nobody's talking about a ban here, just common sense restrictions. Is the "we aren't calling for a ban" a lie in this case? I guess not technically, but it's damn sure misleading, especially if you only say the first sentence without further explanation as a response to someone arguing against the policies.

While I agree it's dishonest to say people advocate for a total gun ban, I think it is accurate to say people advocate for a gun ban, as they want to ban guns that are commonly used and purchased. Is it the clearest way of saying it? Not really, and it can be twisted around the same way the "nobody is pushing for a gun ban" can be even though it could be argued as well.

TLDR: Whether people are or aren't pushing for a gun ban can be considered accurate or not based on your interpretation, and in both cases can be used to mislead people. I think saying Australia doesn't have a gun ban and never has is at least as misleading as saying many Americans are pushing for gun bans. Neither one is particularly clear.

Quote
I agree with you ooeei that when gun specific restrictions are implemented they do restrict certain types of guns.  Australia restricted usage of semi-automatic rifles for example, and these make up 20% of the guns owned in the US (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview)).  I'm not saying that Australia's solution is the best one for the US.  You can certainly argue about what measures are more sensible in your country.  What you can't do is lie about what happened in Australia.  If you do, I'm going to point it out.

Okay, I'll elaborate. Australia has restricted (and by restricted I mean nobody can buy or own them) a lot of guns that we commonly own and use in the United States, but not all of them. Definitely not a ban though, because they're just "restricted" with no chance of getting them, and you can still buy a .22 or a shotgun with a limited capacity if you have an appropriate reason for owning them, and self defense does not constitute an appropriate reason.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 30, 2018, 09:17:39 AM
Quote
I agree with you ooeei that when gun specific restrictions are implemented they do restrict certain types of guns.  Australia restricted usage of semi-automatic rifles for example, and these make up 20% of the guns owned in the US (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview)).  I'm not saying that Australia's solution is the best one for the US.  You can certainly argue about what measures are more sensible in your country.  What you can't do is lie about what happened in Australia.  If you do, I'm going to point it out.

Okay, I'll elaborate. Australia has restricted (and by restricted I mean nobody can buy or own them) a lot of guns that we commonly own and use in the United States, but not all of them. Definitely not a ban though, because they're just "restricted" with no chance of getting them, and you can still buy a .22 or a shotgun with a limited capacity if you have an appropriate reason for owning them, and self defense does not constitute an appropriate reason.

You have to realize . . . as an American, you are coming from a pretty strange situation.  Most of the rest of the world has more pervasive gun regulation.  The arguments and ideas put forth as common sense/common place aren't.  I live in Canada (similar rules to Australia).  We have lots of regulations regarding guns.  We also have high gun ownership, and many people who use guns pretty regularly.  While there are gun restrictions, there are plenty of legal firearms available to buy . . . and while it's more hassle than in the US it is not a particularly onerous task to obtain a firearm.  This is seen as common sense / common place in most of the rest of the world.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 30, 2018, 09:57:30 AM
You have to realize . . . as an American, you are coming from a pretty strange situation.  Most of the rest of the world has more pervasive gun regulation.  The arguments and ideas put forth as common sense/common place aren't.  I live in Canada (similar rules to Australia).  We have lots of regulations regarding guns.  We also have high gun ownership, and many people who use guns pretty regularly.  While there are gun restrictions, there are plenty of legal firearms available to buy . . . and while it's more hassle than in the US it is not a particularly onerous task to obtain a firearm.  This is seen as common sense / common place in most of the rest of the world.

I do realize that. I'd ask you to realize that when talking about what we in the US should do about our gun laws, we will discuss them from our perspective. Here's what the typical gun owner has as an experience with "gun ban" discussions.

Gun Owner (GO): Yeah I'm not at all supportive of a gun ban. There are plenty of other ways to go about fixing our problems.

Gun control advocate (GCA): We're not trying to take anyone's guns, relax guys.

GO: Oh, I was worried. So I can keep my AR-15?

GCA: Well not if our legislation passes, we don't want people to have assault rifles because they're dangerous.

GO: Hmm, well what about my glock and sig 9mm?

GCA: Well semi auto pistols are the most used in crimes, so our proposal restricts those from regular ownership as well.

GO: So you're trying to take my guns?

GCA: Whoa whoa whoa, let's be very clear, we're not trying to take anyone's guns, relax. You guys always freak out and exaggerate thinking we're trying to take everyone's guns. We just want common sense legislation with some restrictions on certain types of particularly dangerous guns.

GO: So, you're trying to take my guns?

GCA: For the last time please stay on the issue, we're not trying to take anyone's guns, never have and never will. Gosh you guys are always so worried about people taking your guns you don't even care about little Suzie dying every day.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 30, 2018, 10:24:15 AM
You have to realize . . . as an American, you are coming from a pretty strange situation.  Most of the rest of the world has more pervasive gun regulation.  The arguments and ideas put forth as common sense/common place aren't.  I live in Canada (similar rules to Australia).  We have lots of regulations regarding guns.  We also have high gun ownership, and many people who use guns pretty regularly.  While there are gun restrictions, there are plenty of legal firearms available to buy . . . and while it's more hassle than in the US it is not a particularly onerous task to obtain a firearm.  This is seen as common sense / common place in most of the rest of the world.

I do realize that. I'd ask you to realize that when talking about what we in the US should do about our gun laws, we will discuss them from our perspective. Here's what the typical gun owner has as an experience with "gun ban" discussions.

Gun control advocate (GCA): We're not trying to take anyone's guns, relax guys.

Gun owner (GO): Oh, I was worried. So I can keep my AR-15?

GCA: Well not if our legislation passes, we don't want people to have assault rifles because they're dangerous.

GO: Hmm, well what about my glock and sig 9mm?

GCA: Well semi auto pistols are the most used in crimes, so our proposal restricts those from regular ownership as well.

GO: So you're trying to take my guns?

GCA: Whoa whoa whoa, let's be very clear, we're not trying to take anyone's guns, relax. You guys always freak out and exaggerate thinking we're trying to take everyone's guns. We just want common sense legislation with some restrictions on certain types of particularly dangerous guns.

GO: So, you're trying to take my guns?

GCA: For the last time please stay on the issue, we're not trying to take anyone's guns, never have and never will. Gosh you guys are always so worried about people taking your guns you don't even care about little Suzie dying every day.

Here's what it sounds like from the other side:


GCA: We want to restrict further sale of certain classes of weapons - the ones most commonly used in crimes.

GO: So you're taking away all of our guns!

GCA: No, there are still plenty of other guns that you can buy, and anything we do with a popular class of weapon will have to include grandfathering in.  The best we're really hoping for is that a century or two from now most of these guns will be difficult to get in the US.

GO: No, I want the deadliest guns, and I want them all the time.  They're the most fun.  Restricting any gun sale is expressly forbidden by the almighty 2nd amendment.

GCA: There are already restrictions on weapons (like fully automatic pistols/rifles).  Anyways, nobody's taking away your guns, just preventing sale of new weapons of this type.

GO: No, you can't restrict any guns.  That's the same as taking every gun.  2nd amendment!

GCA: . . .

GO: I am perturbed and so will now buy three guns:

- One to leave at home fully loaded and unsecured in a place that my toddler might get to . . . because a home invasion could happen at any moment, and I'll need to take them out one after the other with my incredible shooting skills.

- One to carry with me on tactical wal-mart/church/bar excursions . . . gotta be safe.  You never know when you'll end up meeting a nut with a gun.

- One to privately sell to someone who tells me his name is Dave.  Dave is a good guy, he told me so - and he's willing to pay more than what a new gun in a shop costs!  What a great deal for both of us.

Hmm?  No, I don't think any of that is ridiculous.  Can you believe the temerity of that gun control guy thinking that exercising my legal right to anything just listed might be wrong?  I need to go complain online about how restrictions on bump stocks are an infringement of my rights as a gun owner, and how any form of gun control is the exact same as taking all guns.  We sure have it tough in this virtually unregulated environment.  Good thing we don't live in a country that bans every gun ever, like Australia or Canada.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Parizade on January 30, 2018, 02:24:10 PM
Hmm, it's as if most if not all those records are already kept in various databases. Weird!
Have you ever been part of a project to combine large databases of protected health information on individual people.  I have, it can be a nightmare.

BTW, there is no such thing as a marksmanship badge. It was discontinued in 1966 and replace by the Rifle and Shotgun Shooting which itself was discontinued in 1987. Now it's simply called Rifle Shooting merit badge which can be accomplished with an Air BB or Pellet Rifle. Sure you can use a 22 as well but it's not necessary. Also these are Boy Scouts, not Cub Scouts. Cub Scouts are elementary school age. My son's troop visits the shooting rang every year at Summer Camp to work on their Merit Badge and not a single one of them owns a 22. I enjoy watching and helping them.

But yes it would be a pain in the butt to sell a gun to your teenage Boy Scout neighbor. Much like it's a pain in the butt to sell a car to your teenage neighbor. Filling out paperwork, registering it, paying taxes on it, standing in line at the BMV, etc. A gun purchase between 2 people should be just as painful to transact and it doesn't make any sense why it isn't. I am all for it!

In your quest to be condescending you've managed to focus on the irrelevant and completely ignore the my points about the challenge of protecting private information.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 30, 2018, 03:49:12 PM
In your quest to be condescending you've managed to focus on the irrelevant and completely ignore the my points about the challenge of protecting private information.

Right, I should have just went with the "sell a gun to an elementary school kid" analogy. <- Now that was condescending.

Actually I very politely corrected you because I happen to be heavily involved in Boy Scouts as a merit badge counselor, and even acknowledged the difficulty of selling guns to your neighbor. My apologies for offending your sensibilities.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: scottish on January 30, 2018, 05:11:47 PM
In your quest to be condescending you've managed to focus on the irrelevant and completely ignore the my points about the challenge of protecting private information.

Right, I should have just went with the "sell a gun to an elementary school kid" analogy. <- Now that was condescending.

Actually I very politely corrected you because I happen to be heavily involved in Boy Scouts as a merit badge counselor, and even acknowledged the difficulty of selling guns to your neighbor. My apologies for offending your sensibilities.

It's fascinating how we keep arguing the same points over and over again in different threads.

Much of the United States culturally thinks gun ownership is a fundamental right.   Price of freedom.   Enables personal responsibility and independence.   Gun crime not related to gun ownership.

Rest of the first world doesn't.   

I find it really interesting how groups of people develop views about things like gun ownership, health care, Muslims, #metoo, democracy.  People quickly identify strongly with the group and it becomes like a tribe ready to defend their beliefs against all others.

Sometimes I catch myself doing this & I have to stop and reset my thought process.     
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Indexer on January 30, 2018, 05:12:49 PM
Jumping in a bit late here.

It sounds like both sides, for the most part, agree that universal background checks make sense. Which aligns with 80-90% of the American people. Why can't we have a healthy conversation about that, and as a country actually implement it?

For context: I am a responsible gun owner. Most responsible gun owners I know want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Establishing the kind of database necessary for background checks is just as frightening to liberals as it is to gun owners, and with good reason.

Effective background checks require a massive database that includes very sensitive mental health information on every citizen of the USA. This information is considered Protected Health Information (PHI) so putting it into a database that can be accessed by any cashier that might sell guns or ammo is problematic.

Why does the cashier need access to the data in the database? That isn't how it works now. Background checks already happen. In my state you go to the sheriff's office to file the paperwork for a background check, and then they give you a permit to take to the gun shop showing you passed the background check. If getting this done each time you want to buy a gun is too much of a hassle you can get a concealed carry permit, which requires a class and a more rigorous background check, and then you can buy guns whenever you want.

Requiring universal background checks is as simple as requiring private sellers to require the same permit that the gun shop currently has to ask for.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 30, 2018, 09:42:24 PM
GCA: We want to restrict further sale of certain classes of weapons - the ones most commonly used in crimes.

The types of weapons the modern gun control effort focuses on are "assault weapons" which are arbitrarily defined and absolutely not the most commonly used in crimes.

GCA: No, there are still plenty of other guns that you can buy, and anything we do with a popular class of weapon will have to include grandfathering in.

But, I pointed out a gun control effort earlier in this thread that contains no grandfathering exemption.

GCA: There are already restrictions on weapons (like fully automatic pistols/rifles).  Anyways, nobody's taking away your guns, just preventing sale of new weapons of this type.

GO: No, you can't restrict any guns.  That's the same as taking every gun.  2nd amendment!

There is an absolutionist response to gun control efforts because there have been no compromises on the issue virtually since 1934 until very recently... until the gun rights movement really got energized, it had been a constant encroachment of gun control. First it was onerous restrictions on full autos, then it was a needless and non-value added prohibition on full autos, then it was "assault weapons" and then finally gun rights folks were able to fight back and achieve concealed carry in many states. And I have never, ever seen convincing evidence that concealed carry causes crime to increase. (I am not certain that it causes crime to decrease either.)

Personally, I am willing to compromise and I'm quite happy to discuss with others who are too. I think most people agree that universal background checks are an achievable political victory, one more desired by the gun control crowd than the gun rights crowd. So, gun control folks want universal background checks, very well, fair enough. What are you going to give in return?

GO: I am perturbed and so will now buy three guns:

Yes, when affronted, Americans often react aggressively. It's like how MMM himself flaunts federal law with a smirk and a sneer when he uses marijuana or advocates drinking in public so long as you are polite about it. You do what you want and if others try to stop you from doing it, you're prone to doing it that much more just to spite them. It's kind of like a gay pride parade... an aggressive, shameless reaction to silly and pointless standards imposed by people who rarely understand or care to understand the issue from any perspective but their own.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on January 31, 2018, 01:36:28 AM
Are American citizens allowed to own nuclear weapons?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on January 31, 2018, 07:36:37 AM
Are American citizens allowed to own nuclear weapons?

What a tedious and irrelevant line of logic you're trying to trap people in.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 31, 2018, 07:48:52 AM
Are American citizens allowed to own nuclear weapons?

No.

The "absolutionist [sic]" gun lobby strikes again with it's lack of compromise and unfair restrictions.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on January 31, 2018, 08:45:13 AM
No, even our choice in fireworks are regulated. You can have a gun but you can't buy really big firecrackers. ;)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 01, 2018, 12:35:17 AM
I was curious to see where the right to bear arms ends.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 01, 2018, 11:51:12 AM
I was curious to see where the right to bear arms ends.

Basically at fully automatic machine guns.

That probably should have been done through an actual amendment rather than a court decision, but it's pretty politically stable.  A fully automatic machine gun just doesn't offer enough extra utility over a semi-automatic for anybody to go to bat for and I suspect but don't know that if 2nd amendment supporters tried to roll back that decision, it would backfire politically.

Plus, you can still own a chain gun, a cannon, grenade launcher, and a tank, although the actual grenade and munitions for the tank are either expensive and burdensome to get (grenade) or possibly unavailable (tank; I don't think you can own modern artillery rounds where the propulsion is contained, whereas a black powder cannon is legal).  No clue what, if any, limitations there are on say missiles for aircraft.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 01, 2018, 12:24:00 PM
First it was onerous restrictions on full autos, then it was a needless and non-value added prohibition on full autos

It would appear that they're not happy about the full auto decision.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 01, 2018, 12:30:04 PM
I actually expect a push for legalizing full auto during the Trump administration.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Peter Parker on February 01, 2018, 03:19:01 PM
I think the Title needs to be edited:  14 SCHOOL SHOOTINGS IN 32 DAYS

WHOOO HOOO!!! So much winning.  Let's keep doing nothing.  We are sooooo awesome at that.... Just think what we can achieve after 365 days! 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on February 01, 2018, 04:24:57 PM
I was curious to see where the right to bear arms ends.

Basically at fully automatic machine guns.

That probably should have been done through an actual amendment rather than a court decision, but it's pretty politically stable.  A fully automatic machine gun just doesn't offer enough extra utility over a semi-automatic for anybody to go to bat for and I suspect but don't know that if 2nd amendment supporters tried to roll back that decision, it would backfire politically.

Plus, you can still own a chain gun, a cannon, grenade launcher, and a tank, although the actual grenade and munitions for the tank are either expensive and burdensome to get (grenade) or possibly unavailable (tank; I don't think you can own modern artillery rounds where the propulsion is contained, whereas a black powder cannon is legal).  No clue what, if any, limitations there are on say missiles for aircraft.

The problem with the machinegun ban is that it is more restrictive than the laws to buy a cannon, grenade launcher, or grenades. There is a legal process to buy those kinds of things if you really want them, however there is no legal way to buy an actual AK-47 or M16, you can only buy a watered-down clone, or you can spend literally tens of thousands of dollars on one that was made before 1986.

The legal process to buy a machinegun is very strict and involves rather extreme vetting, and legal full auto guns have virtually never been used in crime. I highly doubt that we'd see gun deaths rise if we rolled restrictions back just a hair and made it such that the process to buy full auto guns is the same as the process to buy grenade launchers.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 01, 2018, 05:34:24 PM
I was curious to see where the right to bear arms ends.

Basically at fully automatic machine guns.

That probably should have been done through an actual amendment rather than a court decision, but it's pretty politically stable.  A fully automatic machine gun just doesn't offer enough extra utility over a semi-automatic for anybody to go to bat for and I suspect but don't know that if 2nd amendment supporters tried to roll back that decision, it would backfire politically.

Plus, you can still own a chain gun, a cannon, grenade launcher, and a tank, although the actual grenade and munitions for the tank are either expensive and burdensome to get (grenade) or possibly unavailable (tank; I don't think you can own modern artillery rounds where the propulsion is contained, whereas a black powder cannon is legal).  No clue what, if any, limitations there are on say missiles for aircraft.

The problem with the machinegun ban is that it is more restrictive than the laws to buy a cannon, grenade launcher, or grenades. There is a legal process to buy those kinds of things if you really want them, however there is no legal way to buy an actual AK-47 or M16, you can only buy a watered-down clone, or you can spend literally tens of thousands of dollars on one that was made before 1986.

The legal process to buy a machinegun is very strict and involves rather extreme vetting, and legal full auto guns have virtually never been used in crime. I highly doubt that we'd see gun deaths rise if we rolled restrictions back just a hair and made it such that the process to buy full auto guns is the same as the process to buy grenade launchers.

Neato.  So, we have a situation where vetting and greater difficulty at getting a weapon prevents the weapon from being commonly used in crimes.  I mean, the tommy gun was the weapon of choice for criminals in the 30s before being banned.  The solution to this problem?  Loosening restrictions of course!  Think of all the fully automatic weapons unfairly denied their chance to shine.

(Kinda blows the whole argument that if you make certain types of guns illegal only criminals will have 'em right out of the water too . . . but I guess we're not supposed to think of that.)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on February 01, 2018, 05:44:43 PM
You will note that he said no LEGALLY acquired fully automatic gun has been used in a crime. 

I am trying to find stats on how many illegally owned automatic weapons have been used, but the reporting is opaque and seems to lump them with other types of weapons, but it looks like the use of illegal fully automatic guns is right there with the use of  semi-auto guns.

also, there weren't that many fully automatic machine guns to start with. It isn't a reasonable comparison to extrapolate the results of fully automatic weapon restrictions to banning most other guns, as they are so much more prevelant.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on February 03, 2018, 07:15:37 PM
I was curious to see where the right to bear arms ends.

Basically at fully automatic machine guns.

That probably should have been done through an actual amendment rather than a court decision, but it's pretty politically stable.  A fully automatic machine gun just doesn't offer enough extra utility over a semi-automatic for anybody to go to bat for and I suspect but don't know that if 2nd amendment supporters tried to roll back that decision, it would backfire politically.

Plus, you can still own a chain gun, a cannon, grenade launcher, and a tank, although the actual grenade and munitions for the tank are either expensive and burdensome to get (grenade) or possibly unavailable (tank; I don't think you can own modern artillery rounds where the propulsion is contained, whereas a black powder cannon is legal).  No clue what, if any, limitations there are on say missiles for aircraft.

The problem with the machinegun ban is that it is more restrictive than the laws to buy a cannon, grenade launcher, or grenades. There is a legal process to buy those kinds of things if you really want them, however there is no legal way to buy an actual AK-47 or M16, you can only buy a watered-down clone, or you can spend literally tens of thousands of dollars on one that was made before 1986.

The legal process to buy a machinegun is very strict and involves rather extreme vetting, and legal full auto guns have virtually never been used in crime. I highly doubt that we'd see gun deaths rise if we rolled restrictions back just a hair and made it such that the process to buy full auto guns is the same as the process to buy grenade launchers.

Neato.  So, we have a situation where vetting and greater difficulty at getting a weapon prevents the weapon from being commonly used in crimes.  I mean, the tommy gun was the weapon of choice for criminals in the 30s before being banned.  The solution to this problem?  Loosening restrictions of course!  Think of all the fully automatic weapons unfairly denied their chance to shine.

(Kinda blows the whole argument that if you make certain types of guns illegal only criminals will have 'em right out of the water too . . . but I guess we're not supposed to think of that.)

There is no legal way for a person to own a full auto gun made after 1986.

I am saying, revert full auto restrictions to where they were between 1934 and 1986, when we had (virtually) no crimes with legal full autos, and to the point that the legal status of full autos is the same as the legal status for grenade launchers. It is an absurdity that you can buy grenade launchers in the US with the appropriate vetting, but not new full auto guns no matter how much you want to. There is also no significant risk of a spike in crimes involving legal new full autos, since there were virtually no crimes involving new full autos when there was a legal process to buy them, and the legal full autos that still exist are also virtually never used in crimes.

EDIT: I went to the shooting range today with a friend... almost every single gun I saw would be of great concern to the gun control crowd. Pistols with high capacity magazines, compact pistols designed for concealed carry, all but two of the ten or so rifles were AR-15s, and most frightening of all was a working class black gentleman who had a folding high capacity carbine (Kel-Tec Sub 2000). Even if someone did manage to muster up the political will to ban the "wrong" kind of guns, good luck enforcing the law... nearly half of all Americans have used marijuana and there is a very real possibility of offering citizenship to some illegal immigrants in the near future. We are not a people who are given to kowtowing to bizarre edicts from distant and disconnected bureaucrats.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on February 03, 2018, 08:05:58 PM
Are American citizens allowed to own nuclear weapons?

American citizens should have nuclear weapons because what if the King of England tries to mess with us. We could pop out from behind a tree and nuke him.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 04, 2018, 03:10:22 PM
At this point, I don't care what you legalize.  What's the difference?  I've mentioned it several times, but your side has totally won on pretty much every front.  Start selling fully automatic weapons in corner stores.  Get a free grenade with every third order of fries at McDonald's.  Whatevs.

All I ask is that you own your choices.  Loudly proclaim that you don't give a shit who dies in gun related incidents - being able to get a hold of a weapon with no fuss is much more important.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on February 04, 2018, 03:39:53 PM
It's fine if you don't want to respond to my points, but just because someone has a different opinion on how to solve a problem, or has different concerns that they want addressed, does not mean that they are wrong or evil or malicious or their hearts are smaller than yours. It also doesn't justify nationalist snark, either.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 05, 2018, 07:36:55 AM
You offered no opinion of any kind regarding how to solve the problem (which is pretty typical of gun advocates - other than the occasional "it's just the crazy people", "guns save more lives than they take", "it's mostly black men" there's never any concern or interest in this part of the conversation.)  I did respond to your single point though.  Your main concern is easy access to firearms for all.  I don't think you're evil, malicious, or have a heart smaller than mine.  I do think that you're quick to dismiss the societal problems of gun violence, and absolutely refuse to take ownership of what supporting the position that you support means.

As to nationalism . . . you kinda kicked it off with your ridiculous "We are not a people who are given to kowtowing to bizarre edicts from distant and disconnected bureaucrats".
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 05, 2018, 10:02:37 AM
At this point, I don't care what you legalize.  What's the difference?  I've mentioned it several times, but your side has totally won on pretty much every front.  Start selling fully automatic weapons in corner stores.  Get a free grenade with every third order of fries at McDonald's.  Whatevs.

All I ask is that you own your choices.  Loudly proclaim that you don't give a shit who dies in gun related incidents - being able to get a hold of a weapon with no fuss is much more important.

By that logic, you would have to proclaim that poor people don't deserve to be able to protect themselves and women in poor people should just have to live with being raped.  If you want to enjoy protection, you need to be sure to be rich enough to live, work, and play in a safe neighborhood(s). 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 05, 2018, 10:17:15 AM
The idea that you're all OK with policing that sucks so hard every person in the country needs to arm themselves is a bit weird to me.  My understanding is also that justifiable homicide use is about 30 times lower than criminal homicide every year (http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf (http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf)).  But all that aside . . . You believe that being able to more easily buy a legal fully automatic weapon will protect the poor and reduce rapes?  Why?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 05, 2018, 01:27:23 PM
The idea that you're all OK with policing that sucks so hard every person in the country needs to arm themselves is a bit weird to me.  My understanding is also that justifiable homicide use is about 30 times lower than criminal homicide every year (http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf (http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf)).  But all that aside . . . You believe that being able to more easily buy a legal fully automatic weapon will protect the poor and reduce rapes?  Why?

You point out that the number of criminal homicides are 30 times higher than justifiable homicide as an argument against allowing people the means to defend themselves?   
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 05, 2018, 02:00:20 PM
I'm pointing out that easy and effectively universal access to a staggering array of weapons doesn't result in people justifiably defending themselves all that often from criminals.  It does mean that criminals have easier access to firearms though.  It was just proposed to relax regulation of a class of gun (fully automatic weapons) that few have ever argues serves a defensive purpose.  So, again . . . I'm asking why do you believe  that being able to more easily buy a fully automatic weapon will protect the poor and reduce rapes?

I've never, ever argued that people shouldn't defend themselves.  Hell, I haven't even argued that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns.  Even with various levels of gun control, people somehow manage to defend themselves in Canada, Japan, the UK, New Zealand, and Australia.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 05, 2018, 03:03:24 PM
I'm pointing out that easy and effectively universal access to a staggering array of weapons doesn't result in people justifiably defending themselves all that often from criminals.
  Actually, you pointed out that it doesn't result in people justifiably killing people very often.  You don't have to kill people for a gun to be an effective defensive weapon or an effective deterrent. 

It does mean that criminals have easier access to firearms though.  It was just proposed to relax regulation of a class of gun (fully automatic weapons) that few have ever argues serves a defensive purpose.  So, again . . . I'm asking why do you believe  that being able to more easily buy a fully automatic weapon will protect the poor and reduce rapes?
  I never made that argument.  You were the one that made a general argument regarding supporting people being able to by a firearm with "no fuss" means you don't give a shit as to who dies in a gun incident.   

I've never, ever argued that people shouldn't defend themselves.  Hell, I haven't even argued that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns.  Even with various levels of gun control, people somehow manage to defend themselves in Canada, Japan, the UK, New Zealand, and Australia.
  But you seem pretty flippant in downplaying the importance of the lives of people who have committed a justifiable homicide in self defense (not to mention the much greater number of people who were protected without a death being involved).  I suspect they would have a different opinion than you as to whether the number of instances of self defense justify not restricting access to guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 05, 2018, 05:07:09 PM
I'm pointing out that easy and effectively universal access to a staggering array of weapons doesn't result in people justifiably defending themselves all that often from criminals.
  Actually, you pointed out that it doesn't result in people justifiably killing people very often.  You don't have to kill people for a gun to be an effective defensive weapon or an effective deterrent.

Sure.  And you don't have to kill a man to commit a crime with a gun.  You're a smart guy, you already know that stats for gun use for defensive purposes in the US are rather hand-wavy estimates.

Quote
It does mean that criminals have easier access to firearms though.  It was just proposed to relax regulation of a class of gun (fully automatic weapons) that few have ever argues serves a defensive purpose.  So, again . . . I'm asking why do you believe  that being able to more easily buy a fully automatic weapon will protect the poor and reduce rapes?
  I never made that argument.  You were the one that made a general argument regarding supporting people being able to by a firearm with "no fuss" means you don't give a shit as to who dies in a gun incident.

It's an argument I'll stick by.

We have gun advocates in this thread saying that they'll oppose legislation they believe reasonable that will increase everyone's safety because it might be a gateway to imaginary 'steal all the guns' legislation.  Whether they like to admit it or not, that means that they don't give a shit if someone dies in a gun incident . . . The important thing is that they can buy guns.

Supporting the same argument we have the suggestion that it's important to reduce regulation on one of the (incredibly few) types of firearm that is restricted in the US.  No argument made as to why this is sonehow necessary for sporting, hunting, or self defence purposes.  Simply a willingness to risk lives to get more of that sweet, sweet trigger action.

I'm glad that you don't believe that fully automatic weapons serve any purpose for self defence though.  At least we've got one point of agreement.

Quote
I've never, ever argued that people shouldn't defend themselves.  Hell, I haven't even argued that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns.  Even with various levels of gun control, people somehow manage to defend themselves in Canada, Japan, the UK, New Zealand, and Australia.
  But you seem pretty flippant in downplaying the importance of the lives of people who have committed a justifiable homicide in self defense (not to mention the much greater number of people who were protected without a death being involved).  I suspect they would have a different opinion than you as to whether the number of instances of self defense justify not restricting access to guns.

Not downplaying anything.  Protecting yourself is certainly important.  Preventing the kind of situation that requires a gun from happening in the first place is more so, and has greater societal benefit though.  The 30+ times more people killed by criminals would probably disagree with the justifiable homicide crowd about the utility of easy access to firearms for all.



Look, your side won.  You're living in one of the least restrictive countries in the world for guns.  If all the bullshit about guns being a net benefit for society was true, why are they such a giant problem for your country?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bacchi on February 05, 2018, 05:48:44 PM
Look, your side won.  You're living in one of the least restrictive countries in the world for guns.  If all the bullshit about guns being a net benefit for society was true, why are they such a giant problem for your country?

As my dad always said, "I trust myself with a gun but I don't trust anyone else with one."
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 06, 2018, 09:10:21 AM
I'm pointing out that easy and effectively universal access to a staggering array of weapons doesn't result in people justifiably defending themselves all that often from criminals.
  Actually, you pointed out that it doesn't result in people justifiably killing people very often.  You don't have to kill people for a gun to be an effective defensive weapon or an effective deterrent.

Sure.  And you don't have to kill a man to commit a crime with a gun.  You're a smart guy, you already know that stats for gun use for defensive purposes in the US are rather hand-wavy estimates.

Quote
It does mean that criminals have easier access to firearms though.  It was just proposed to relax regulation of a class of gun (fully automatic weapons) that few have ever argues serves a defensive purpose.  So, again . . . I'm asking why do you believe  that being able to more easily buy a fully automatic weapon will protect the poor and reduce rapes?
  I never made that argument.  You were the one that made a general argument regarding supporting people being able to by a firearm with "no fuss" means you don't give a shit as to who dies in a gun incident.

It's an argument I'll stick by.

We have gun advocates in this thread saying that they'll oppose legislation they believe reasonable that will increase everyone's safety because it might be a gateway to imaginary 'steal all the guns' legislation.  Whether they like to admit it or not, that means that they don't give a shit if someone dies in a gun incident . . . The important thing is that they can buy guns.

Supporting the same argument we have the suggestion that it's important to reduce regulation on one of the (incredibly few) types of firearm that is restricted in the US.  No argument made as to why this is sonehow necessary for sporting, hunting, or self defence purposes.  Simply a willingness to risk lives to get more of that sweet, sweet trigger action.

I'm glad that you don't believe that fully automatic weapons serve any purpose for self defence though.  At least we've got one point of agreement.

Quote
I've never, ever argued that people shouldn't defend themselves.  Hell, I haven't even argued that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns.  Even with various levels of gun control, people somehow manage to defend themselves in Canada, Japan, the UK, New Zealand, and Australia.
  But you seem pretty flippant in downplaying the importance of the lives of people who have committed a justifiable homicide in self defense (not to mention the much greater number of people who were protected without a death being involved).  I suspect they would have a different opinion than you as to whether the number of instances of self defense justify not restricting access to guns.

Not downplaying anything.  Protecting yourself is certainly important.  Preventing the kind of situation that requires a gun from happening in the first place is more so, and has greater societal benefit though.  The 30+ times more people killed by criminals would probably disagree with the justifiable homicide crowd about the utility of easy access to firearms for all.



Look, your side won.  You're living in one of the least restrictive countries in the world for guns.  If all the bullshit about guns being a net benefit for society was true, why are they such a giant problem for your country?

You say you're not downplaying self defense and that preventing the kind of situation that requires a gun is more important, but the first thing gun control advocates want to do is make it harder for law-abiding citizens to have or obtain guns, not do things to impact criminals.  At the very least, heavily blue cities could start taking straw man purchases seriously and prosecuting people who buy guns for people who would otherwise have to steal them.  Start actually using the tools at hand to stop violent criminals from getting guns, and then maybe start talking about what restrictions on law abiding citizens make sense. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 06, 2018, 09:26:57 AM
Quote
You say you're not downplaying self defense and that preventing the kind of situation that requires a gun is more important, but the first thing gun control advocates want to do is make it harder for law-abiding citizens to have or obtain guns, not do things to impact criminals.

Not true at all.  Mandatory background checks for every firearm sale, and a nation-wide registration of who owns what guns will make it harder for criminals to get guns without significantly impacting the ability of any law abiding citizen to acquire a firearm.

Typically gun advocates are against both of these items . . . because they don't really care about self defense or criminals with guns, just ease of gun ownership.



Quote
At the very least, heavily blue cities could start taking straw man purchases seriously and prosecuting people who buy guns for people who would otherwise have to steal them.  Start actually using the tools at hand to stop violent criminals from getting guns, and then maybe start talking about what restrictions on law abiding citizens make sense.

You're a smart guy.  You already know the answers to the questions you're asking.  Law enforcement isn't stupid.  If what you're proposing was possible, it already would have been implemented.

It's extremely hard to prosecute straw man purchases when there's no searchable database of who owns what.  Even assuming that they manage to do this herculean task perfectly, it probably wouldn't lead to any significant reduction in gun crime . . . not when someone can head to the neighboring red state and then do their straw man purchase.  Of course, we're ignoring the fact that it's a big waste of time when anyone who buys a gun can then turn around and perfectly legally sell it the next day to anyone at all without asking for a background check, home address, or even a name.

As you well know, the tools at hand are insufficient to the task.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 06, 2018, 11:21:31 AM
Quote
You say you're not downplaying self defense and that preventing the kind of situation that requires a gun is more important, but the first thing gun control advocates want to do is make it harder for law-abiding citizens to have or obtain guns, not do things to impact criminals.

Not true at all.  Mandatory background checks for every firearm sale, and a nation-wide registration of who owns what guns will make it harder for criminals to get guns without significantly impacting the ability of any law abiding citizen to acquire a firearm.

Typically gun advocates are against both of these items . . . because they don't really care about self defense or criminals with guns, just ease of gun ownership.



Quote
At the very least, heavily blue cities could start taking straw man purchases seriously and prosecuting people who buy guns for people who would otherwise have to steal them.  Start actually using the tools at hand to stop violent criminals from getting guns, and then maybe start talking about what restrictions on law abiding citizens make sense.

You're a smart guy.  You already know the answers to the questions you're asking.  Law enforcement isn't stupid.  If what you're proposing was possible, it already would have been implemented.

It's extremely hard to prosecute straw man purchases when there's no searchable database of who owns what. 
  It's not a problem with law enforcement (mostly).  It's a problem with prosecutors and politicians who don't really care about stopping gun violence.  The straw man purchases largely aren't commercial transactions.  It's cousins, girlfriends, little brothers, and even grandmothers who buy guns for their gang member relatives who can't get past a background check.  They're generally not just going and buying guns from random people off of craigslist. 

Even assuming that they manage to do this herculean task perfectly, it probably wouldn't lead to any significant reduction in gun crime . . . not when someone can head to the neighboring red state and then do their straw man purchase.  Of course, we're ignoring the fact that it's a big waste of time when anyone who buys a gun can then turn around and perfectly legally sell it the next day to anyone at all without asking for a background check, home address, or even a name.

As you well know, the tools at hand are insufficient to the task.
  If it's so easy to find the guns they need on the used market, why do gang members get their relatives and/or girlfriends to buy them guns? 

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 06, 2018, 11:39:27 AM
It's not a problem with law enforcement (mostly).  It's a problem with prosecutors and politicians who don't really care about stopping gun violence.

Wow.  So, you think that the entire legal branch of the US government has the tools to prevent gun violence right now, but they just choose not to?  Can you expound a bit on that and give some specific examples?




The straw man purchases largely aren't commercial transactions.  It's cousins, girlfriends, little brothers, and even grandmothers who buy guns for their gang member relatives who can't get past a background check.  They're generally not just going and buying guns from random people off of craigslist. 

If it's so easy to find the guns they need on the used market, why do gang members get their relatives and/or girlfriends to buy them guns?

It's easy to find guns on the used market.  It's even easier to tell your girlfriend to go buy a new one for you.  Especially when you know that if questioned by police she can say that she sold the gun privately to someone else and there is no real way to prosecute her in most states.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 06, 2018, 01:46:07 PM
It's not a problem with law enforcement (mostly).  It's a problem with prosecutors and politicians who don't really care about stopping gun violence.

Wow.  So, you think that the entire legal branch of the US government has the tools to prevent gun violence right now, but they just choose not to?  Can you expound a bit on that and give some specific examples?
  Look at every jurisdiction that makes straw purchasing a minor crime rather than a serious one (such as Maryland) and jurisdictions where prosecutors basically refuse to go after straw purchasers even though lawmakers have gone through the trouble of making it a serious felony (such as Illinois).   




The straw man purchases largely aren't commercial transactions.  It's cousins, girlfriends, little brothers, and even grandmothers who buy guns for their gang member relatives who can't get past a background check.  They're generally not just going and buying guns from random people off of craigslist. 

If it's so easy to find the guns they need on the used market, why do gang members get their relatives and/or girlfriends to buy them guns?

It's easy to find guns on the used market.  It's even easier to tell your girlfriend to go buy a new one for you.  Especially when you know that if questioned by police she can say that she sold the gun privately to someone else and there is no real way to prosecute her in most states.
[/quote]  I'm not sure it's a real great defense to claim that you bought a gun and sold it, and then it happened to be repurchased by your boyfriend.  That would just get you an obstruction charge on top of the firearm related charges, assuming lawmakers care enough about gun violence to make being a straw purchases a serious felony and assuming prosecutors care enough about gun violence that they are willing to put people with otherwise clean records away for serious time for providing a gun to a violent criminal. 

But even if it were a good defense, your argument basically boils down to it's hard to stop criminals from getting guns because they will lie if we ask where we got it, so we're going to focus on policing the law abiding.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 06, 2018, 03:19:14 PM
But even if it were a good defense, your argument basically boils down to it's hard to stop criminals from getting guns because they will lie if we ask where we got it, so we're going to focus on policing the law abiding.

Nope, not at all.  The current 'honor system' that the US is employing around gun purchases is ridiculous.  It assumes that everyone will tell the truth . . . and as you just mentioned, that's not always the case.

If you care at all about straw purchasers, you should want a nation wide gun registry searchable by law enforcement.  It would be trivial to write a computer program that cross-references guns used in crime with the person who purchased the gun.  This should check all of your boxes:
- Makes straw purchases incredibly easy to catch
- Doesn't make it any harder to get guns for law abiding people
- No longer relies on people to report their own criminal activity
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 06, 2018, 04:28:35 PM
But even if it were a good defense, your argument basically boils down to it's hard to stop criminals from getting guns because they will lie if we ask where we got it, so we're going to focus on policing the law abiding.

Nope, not at all.  The current 'honor system' that the US is employing around gun purchases is ridiculous.  It assumes that everyone will tell the truth . . . and as you just mentioned, that's not always the case.

If you care at all about straw purchasers, you should want a nation wide gun registry searchable by law enforcement.  It would be trivial to write a computer program that cross-references guns used in crime with the person who purchased the gun.  This should check all of your boxes:
- Makes straw purchases incredibly easy to catch
- Doesn't make it any harder to get guns for law abiding people
- No longer relies on people to report their own criminal activity

You can already run a gun trace to find out who purchased the gun from a licensed dealer.  That's my point.  There will be some guns that change hands on the secondary market in legitimate secondary sales, but many of them go directly from the straw purchaser to the person that can't pass a background check who then use them in a crime.  But those straw purchases are neither prosecuted consistently nor for the most part subject to stiff penalties when they are prosecuted.  If you're not willing to prosecute straw purchasers and impose heavy penalties (and the bluest areas that are nominally most in favor of gun control usually are not), then you don't really care enough about gun control to justify putting additional burdens on law abiding people. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: scottish on February 06, 2018, 05:53:34 PM
But even if it were a good defense, your argument basically boils down to it's hard to stop criminals from getting guns because they will lie if we ask where we got it, so we're going to focus on policing the law abiding.

Nope, not at all.  The current 'honor system' that the US is employing around gun purchases is ridiculous.  It assumes that everyone will tell the truth . . . and as you just mentioned, that's not always the case.

If you care at all about straw purchasers, you should want a nation wide gun registry searchable by law enforcement.  It would be trivial to write a computer program that cross-references guns used in crime with the person who purchased the gun.  This should check all of your boxes:
- Makes straw purchases incredibly easy to catch
- Doesn't make it any harder to get guns for law abiding people
- No longer relies on people to report their own criminal activity

Trivial?   I think Canada's experience with the long gun registry would argue otherwise.

Of course, these are the same bureaucrats that decided to roll their own payroll system instead of hiring ADP.   Maybe they aren't very good at IT projects.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: scottish on February 06, 2018, 06:29:40 PM
How about a gun bounty?   Turn in your guns and receive $$$.   The government destroys firearms as they are turned in.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: scottish on February 07, 2018, 03:35:09 PM
You've got me then.   I can't see what else you can do.   I wonder if gun crime is high because there are so many firearms in the United States?  Or are there just a higher proportion of violent people?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on February 07, 2018, 08:38:11 PM
ETA after binge reading this thread my understanding is that while Canada, Aus and several other countries allow long guns (non semi or full auto) they have banned handguns for most average citizens. Is that correct?
With respect to Aus - no, that is not correct.  Handguns are subject to slightly different rules to long arms though.

In Aus you need a "genuine reason" for owning the type of firearm you are applying for.  "Self defence" is not a genuine reason for owning any class of firearm.  So if your average citizen wants to own a handgun because against all evidence to the contrary they mistakenly believe they will be safer with a handgun nearby at all times, they are out of luck.

However, a perfectly legitimate genuine reason is "target shooting".  To prove you want a handgun for target shooting all you have to do is become a member of a handgun target shooting club and shoot there at least 4 times a year.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 07, 2018, 10:26:25 PM
If you carry that hand gun on your person in public in Australia you are looking at jail time.

Most of those rules in Cali are sensible. I'm all for mandatory training and certificatation/licensing. The problem with Cali is you can simply go to another state and bypass your restrictions.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: middo on February 07, 2018, 10:35:14 PM
^Thats pretty interesting. Do you get to take a gun home with you (properly secured and transported of course) or do you have to leave it at the range? If you can take it home I imagine some people would do target shooting but really wanted it for self protection.

As I understand it, you can take it home, but it must be stored in a gun safe.  Police will check initially for a gun safe to be installed correctly, and can and do make occasional checks thereafter for continuing compliance.  This is the same for all guns in Australia.

I would suggest that the question points to an idea of using a gun for self defence.  This is an idea that the vast majority of Australians would reject on the basis of the statistics that come out of the US regarding children killed by accident or killed by each other.  For the average Australian, you make your home safer by not owning a gun. 

At a fundamental level, this entire debate is problematic, as the US appears from the outside to have a different attitude towards guns from the rest of the western world.  Guns, and gun violence are somehow normalised.  The use of a gun to solve a problem other than the destruction of an animal would be abhorrent to most outside the US.  US TV and movies make it clear to us that guns solve problems in the US, either for self defence, or for aggressive reasons.

* Note - as a farm owner I own and use a rifle.  Currently a .22, but it may be upgraded later as I have goats, and the .22 is not very effective at humane destruction of a goat.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on February 07, 2018, 10:37:25 PM
I would definitely put a law on the books that prosecutes people who do not secure their weapons. That 12 year old did not buy that gun any more than a toddler who kills a playmate or himself is buying guns. Yet I can't think of one case I've read where a parent was jailed for allowing that situation to happen. I do recall a news story of a four year old who got a hold of a gun his grandfather left lying around the house and accidentally killed his older sister. No one was charged and the family seems to be ostracizing the poor kid because of it. I lost a whole lot of respect for gun owners reading that.

We aren't against guns, and have talked about buying one. My husband is military and weapons trained. However, we have three kids and are not willing to risk the consequences of what might happen if we aren't diligent enough. When they are older, maybe we will.

Also, could we not talk about "criminals" as if everyone who commits crimes are slotted into this "bad guy" mold? Everyone is a good person until they do something stupid. Think of any number of road rage cases where someone grabs a nearby gun and kills someone, then everyone wrings their hands and can't believe the shooter would ever do such a thing because he's never shown any signs of it. People make bad choices. I'd prefer we really stiffen consequences when guns are involved. Make people afraid to fuck up with them.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 08, 2018, 12:23:37 AM
That's was kinda of my point. In Cali it's harder for a law abiding citizen to purchase a gun. But very easy for criminals who don't give a fuck about the laws.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on February 08, 2018, 03:23:47 AM
^Thats pretty interesting. Do you get to take a gun home with you (properly secured and transported of course) or do you have to leave it at the range? If you can take it home I imagine some people would do target shooting but really wanted it for self protection
As mentioned by others, yes you can store your firearms at home.  However, they must be properly stored in an approved and properly installed safe with the ammunition stored separately.  The police will check to see if the safe is installed prior to issuing a "permit to acquire" any firearm.  They can then do checks to ensure all firearms are stored correctly for however long you hold a firearms licence.  The checks can be unannounced however you have the right to refuse entry unless the Police prearrange a suitable time for the check.

As for the rest of it, I actually agree that it is not a gun law problem in the USA.  It is a cultural problem.  Unfortunately the beliefs that "guns are fun" and that a gun is a suitable instrument for solving problems seem to both be deeply held in the psyche of the USA.  It is highly unlikely that enacting more restrictive gun laws will change that or reduce gun fatalities whether by accident, a single loss of control when there is a fire arm within easy reach or dedicated criminal behaviour.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 08, 2018, 07:43:03 AM
ETA after binge reading this thread my understanding is that while Canada, Aus and several other countries allow long guns (non semi or full auto) they have banned handguns for most average citizens. Is that correct?

No, you can buy a handgun here (I had a friend in high school who was part of a shooting club who had a handgun) but the rules around it are more restrictive than for rifles/shotguns.  The gun needs to be registered.  You need to prove that you are a member of a gun club that uses handguns for target practice and you need to get authorization to transport the weapon.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 08, 2018, 10:41:27 AM
You've got me then.   I can't see what else you can do.   I wonder if gun crime is high because there are so many firearms in the United States?  Or are there just a higher proportion of violent people?
e

Gun crime and the number of guns are very weakly correlated.  Switzerland has tons of guns and low gun crime, the U.S. has tons of guns and high gun crime.  The U.S. is more violent in general than most developed countries.  A lot of the difference is driven by extremely high crime rates per capita in certain areas (e.g., the bad parts of Chicago, Baltimore, St. Louis, most of your small cities south of the mason dixon line, etc).  But I think even relatively rural areas also tend to be more violent than their counterparts in other developed countries. 

Don't know how to address it in the U.S.  Even if you could do a gun confiscation program, you'd still have problems stopping the flow of guns from Mexico.  And even if you could do that, you'd just be shifting violence from gun violence to other forms of violence.  Maybe there's some benefit to that because other forms are less deadly, but there's also a huge negative because those who are less strong and physical no longer have a way to defend themselves. 

The problem comes back to having violente people.  Some of the mass shootings you could stop through mental health treatment, but that would probably require treating a lot of weird but otherwise harmless men pretty poorly.  Some of the mass shootings you could stop through targeting populations particularly likely to produce terrorists, but that would result in particularly terrible treatment of Muslim populations.  Have no clue how to even start addressing the everyday violence from the "underclass".  At one point, stopping the drug war would have probably reduced it a lot.  Not sure how much impact that would have now.  THe gangs are still there and will still be fighting over some revenue source, or maybe just fighting over territory. 

Just a tough nut to crack. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 08, 2018, 10:57:57 AM
there's also a huge negative because those who are less strong and physical no longer have a way to defend themselves.

This isn't really an individual's responsibility though.  It's the job of the police, public planners, and government in a country to provide a safe place for it's people to live.  Relying on guns as some kind of universal protection is silly in a lot of cases.  Guns are not too useful for a lot of vulnerable people  . . those with certain physical disabilities and diseases (Parkinson's, MS, GB syndrome, etc.), the elderly who have trouble with their joints/shaky hands/any form of dementia/Alzheimer's, anyone with mental problems, people with a previous criminal record, etc.  Nobody in a society should tolerate such a poorly run a state of affairs that it is necessary to arm yourself to be safe.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 08, 2018, 01:33:03 PM
Do we have to do this maths again?

15,586 gun deaths per year
x
85 years (your average age)
=
1,324,810 gun related deaths during your life time.

Yip you read that right, over a million fellow citizens will die due to gun related incidents, on US soil during your life time.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

Yea, but, like 300-600 million will die because of other things?  This is a weird way to look at it?  But you go, get down with your bad self.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 08, 2018, 01:36:01 PM
Do we have to do this maths again?

15,586 gun deaths per year
x
85 years (your average age)
=
1,324,810 gun related deaths during your life time.

Yip you read that right, over a million fellow citizens will die due to gun related incidents, on US soil during your life time.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

Yea, but, like 300-600 million will die because of other things?  This is a weird way to look at it?  But you go, get down with your bad self.

Eventually everyone will die.  Therefore, there's no point in having laws.  Yeah, kinda a weird way of looking at it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dycker1978 on February 08, 2018, 01:46:23 PM
Do we have to do this maths again?

15,586 gun deaths per year
x
85 years (your average age)
=
1,324,810 gun related deaths during your life time.

Yip you read that right, over a million fellow citizens will die due to gun related incidents, on US soil during your life time.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

Yea, but, like 300-600 million will die because of other things?  This is a weird way to look at it?  But you go, get down with your bad self.

Eventually everyone will die.  Therefore, there's no point in having laws.  Yeah, kinda a weird way of looking at it.

This is the what it always seems to come back to... more people die other ways, so why try?

Cause people are shooting 100's at a time  or killing kids in the schools.  we can do better, we should do better. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 08, 2018, 02:58:10 PM
If left unaddressed the problem will solve itself. Gun deaths in the USA are increasing by 6% per year. If it continues at this rate, within 165 years 300,000,000 people will die annually from gun violence in America.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on February 09, 2018, 08:27:00 AM
Do we have to do this maths again?

15,586 gun deaths per year
x
85 years (your average age)
=
1,324,810 gun related deaths during your life time.

Yip you read that right, over a million fellow citizens will die due to gun related incidents, on US soil during your life time.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

Yea, but, like 300-600 million will die because of other things?  This is a weird way to look at it?  But you go, get down with your bad self.

Eventually everyone will die.  Therefore, there's no point in having laws.  Yeah, kinda a weird way of looking at it.

This is the what it always seems to come back to... more people die other ways, so why try?

Cause people are shooting 100's at a time  or killing kids in the schools.  we can do better, we should do better.

So because we are all going to die eventually, its okay to die violently? For children to die violently? To be denied a chance at a peaceful lifetime with our families and friends?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dycker1978 on February 09, 2018, 11:30:39 AM
Do we have to do this maths again?

15,586 gun deaths per year
x
85 years (your average age)
=
1,324,810 gun related deaths during your life time.

Yip you read that right, over a million fellow citizens will die due to gun related incidents, on US soil during your life time.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

Yea, but, like 300-600 million will die because of other things?  This is a weird way to look at it?  But you go, get down with your bad self.

Eventually everyone will die.  Therefore, there's no point in having laws.  Yeah, kinda a weird way of looking at it.

This is the what it always seems to come back to... more people die other ways, so why try?

Cause people are shooting 100's at a time  or killing kids in the schools.  we can do better, we should do better.

So because we are all going to die eventually, its okay to die violently? For children to die violently? To be denied a chance at a peaceful lifetime with our families and friends?

I may not have been as clear as you, but this is exactly my point. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: palerider1858 on February 09, 2018, 12:00:09 PM
there's also a huge negative because those who are less strong and physical no longer have a way to defend themselves.

This isn't really an individual's responsibility though.  It's the job of the police, public planners, and government in a country to provide a safe place for it's people to live.  Relying on guns as some kind of universal protection is silly in a lot of cases.  Guns are not too useful for a lot of vulnerable people  . . those with certain physical disabilities and diseases (Parkinson's, MS, GB syndrome, etc.), the elderly who have trouble with their joints/shaky hands/any form of dementia/Alzheimer's, anyone with mental problems, people with a previous criminal record, etc.  Nobody in a society should tolerate such a poorly run a state of affairs that it is necessary to arm yourself to be safe.
Your assumption is incorrect according to the Supreme Court.
 I have many friends in law enforcement. It's a very common and sometimes fatal misconception to assume law enforcement is there to protect you. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html (ftp://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 09, 2018, 12:20:06 PM
there's also a huge negative because those who are less strong and physical no longer have a way to defend themselves.

This isn't really an individual's responsibility though.  It's the job of the police, public planners, and government in a country to provide a safe place for it's people to live.  Relying on guns as some kind of universal protection is silly in a lot of cases.  Guns are not too useful for a lot of vulnerable people  . . those with certain physical disabilities and diseases (Parkinson's, MS, GB syndrome, etc.), the elderly who have trouble with their joints/shaky hands/any form of dementia/Alzheimer's, anyone with mental problems, people with a previous criminal record, etc.  Nobody in a society should tolerate such a poorly run a state of affairs that it is necessary to arm yourself to be safe.
Your assumption is incorrect according to the Supreme Court.
 I have many friends in law enforcement. It's a very common and sometimes fatal misconception to assume law enforcement is there to protect you. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html (ftp://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html)

The Supreme Court massively failed the American people when making that decision.  Protection of citizens should be the primary purpose of any police force in a country.  There is no better purpose that they can be put to.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 09, 2018, 01:17:36 PM
there's also a huge negative because those who are less strong and physical no longer have a way to defend themselves.

This isn't really an individual's responsibility though.  It's the job of the police, public planners, and government in a country to provide a safe place for it's people to live.  Relying on guns as some kind of universal protection is silly in a lot of cases.  Guns are not too useful for a lot of vulnerable people  . . those with certain physical disabilities and diseases (Parkinson's, MS, GB syndrome, etc.), the elderly who have trouble with their joints/shaky hands/any form of dementia/Alzheimer's, anyone with mental problems, people with a previous criminal record, etc.  Nobody in a society should tolerate such a poorly run a state of affairs that it is necessary to arm yourself to be safe.

I'm guessing most victims of violent crime would prefer access to self defense rather than the platitude that they shouldn't have to defend themselves. I certainly don't think the fact that they shouldn't have to protect themselves makes it less immoral to deprive them of the ability to defend themselves. If anything, it makes it worse.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 09, 2018, 01:39:51 PM
there's also a huge negative because those who are less strong and physical no longer have a way to defend themselves.

This isn't really an individual's responsibility though.  It's the job of the police, public planners, and government in a country to provide a safe place for it's people to live.  Relying on guns as some kind of universal protection is silly in a lot of cases.  Guns are not too useful for a lot of vulnerable people  . . those with certain physical disabilities and diseases (Parkinson's, MS, GB syndrome, etc.), the elderly who have trouble with their joints/shaky hands/any form of dementia/Alzheimer's, anyone with mental problems, people with a previous criminal record, etc.  Nobody in a society should tolerate such a poorly run a state of affairs that it is necessary to arm yourself to be safe.

I'm guessing most victims of violent crime would prefer access to self defense rather than the platitude that they shouldn't have to defend themselves. I certainly don't think the fact that they shouldn't have to protect themselves makes it less immoral to deprive them of the ability to defend themselves. If anything, it makes it worse.

I'm guessing that most victims of violent crimes would prefer not to be victims of violent crimes rather than to have to live the rest of their lives armed and terrified.  The best way to bring about that situation is not greater access to firearms for all, but for better policing and crime prevention strategies.

As was mentioned previously, there are a lot of people for whom guns cannot be used for self defense.  If you're relying on folks to arm themselves rather to correct the safety problem, what is your suggestion to these people?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 09, 2018, 02:32:27 PM
Sentry guns, personal drones with semi automatic firearms attached. Technology to the rescue again.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Peter Parker on February 14, 2018, 01:12:09 PM
I think the Title needs to be edited:  14 SCHOOL SHOOTINGS IN 32 DAYS

WHOOO HOOO!!! So much winning.  Let's keep doing nothing.  We are sooooo awesome at that.... Just think what we can achieve after 365 days!

Awesome!  ANOTHER SCHOOL SHOOTING--This time at Douglass High School in Parkland, Florida!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bacchi on February 14, 2018, 02:10:29 PM
I think the Title needs to be edited:  14 SCHOOL SHOOTINGS IN 32 DAYS

WHOOO HOOO!!! So much winning.  Let's keep doing nothing.  We are sooooo awesome at that.... Just think what we can achieve after 365 days!

Awesome!  ANOTHER SCHOOL SHOOTING--This time at Douglass High School in Parkland, Florida!
    * Let's KEEP DOING NOTHING--It makes America GREAT
        * Let's endlessly debate the nuances of the 2nd Amendment--Keep protecting those gun rights
        * Let's keep electing pro-gun politicians--That way I can keep my guns!
        * Let's keep donating to the NRA--so they can buy off politicians!
        * Let's make more weapons available for more people

    Let's not get angry for god's sake--after all guns don't kill people....God bless America!

    EDITED TO ADD:  MAKE SURE WE SEND "THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS" (BUT DON'T DO ANYTHING ELSE)

* Arm teachers and children so that they can protect themselves when a bad guy shows up. Self defense FTW!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 14, 2018, 02:52:46 PM
Tweeted two hours ago.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wexler on February 14, 2018, 02:58:36 PM
I think the Title needs to be edited:  14 SCHOOL SHOOTINGS IN 32 DAYS

WHOOO HOOO!!! So much winning.  Let's keep doing nothing.  We are sooooo awesome at that.... Just think what we can achieve after 365 days!

Awesome!  ANOTHER SCHOOL SHOOTING--This time at Douglass High School in Parkland, Florida!
    * Let's KEEP DOING NOTHING--It makes America GREAT
        * Let's endlessly debate the nuances of the 2nd Amendment--Keep protecting those gun rights
        * Let's keep electing pro-gun politicians--That way I can keep my guns!
        * Let's keep donating to the NRA--so they can buy off politicians!
        * Let's make more weapons available for more people

    Let's not get angry for god's sake--after all guns don't kill people....God bless America!

    EDITED TO ADD:  MAKE SURE WE SEND "THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS" (BUT DON'T DO ANYTHING ELSE)

You forgot:

talk about addressing mental health concerns--simultaneously vote to cut healthcare


Do you think that gun storage laws would do any good?  The shooter is supposedly a student, so he likely got the gun from home.  If gun owners are responsible for the damage done by an unsecured gun, maybe they'd spend some resources locking them up and keeping them out of the hands of their kids.  I'm sure our resident 2nd amendment people have all kinds of reasons why storing their guns properly is a massive imposition on their freedom, and I can't wait to hear them.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on February 14, 2018, 03:09:03 PM
Just another day in America sadly. In the meantime nothing will be done and we'll just wait for the next one. But hey at least we are banning Muslims!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 14, 2018, 06:08:00 PM
Do you think that gun storage laws would do any good?  The shooter is supposedly a student, so he likely got the gun from home.  If gun owners are responsible for the damage done by an unsecured gun, maybe they'd spend some resources locking them up and keeping them out of the hands of their kids.  I'm sure our resident 2nd amendment people have all kinds of reasons why storing their guns properly is a massive imposition on their freedom, and I can't wait to hear them.

The usual argument is that if a group of ninjas assaulted your home you might be caught without a gun while trying to open your safe up.  Ease of access for kids who want to shoot up their school is a small price to pay for defense from a coordinated assault on your home.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: px4shooter on February 14, 2018, 07:14:33 PM
If only it was illegal to bring a gun on school property, this wouldn't happen.

I wonder what mentally ill meds this murderer was on.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bacchi on February 14, 2018, 08:29:40 PM
If only it was illegal to bring a gun on school property, this wouldn't happen.

Exactly. Only bad guys shoot people so we just need to arm the good guys and let them open carry.

Problem solved!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on February 14, 2018, 08:33:17 PM
Ho-hum, just another day. Thoughts and prayers and yadda yadda yadda. Nothing is ever going to change about mass shootings in the USA, so there's no point even discussing it anymore. America LIKES mass shootings. That's why we refuse to prevent them.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 14, 2018, 08:35:06 PM
If only it was illegal to bring a gun on school property, this wouldn't happen.

I wonder what mentally ill meds this murderer was on.

Looks like he was high on guns and MAGA.

https://www.truthexam.com/2018/02/breaking-the-shooter-in-the-florida-shooting-has-been-identified-and-its-not-good/
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bacchi on February 14, 2018, 08:35:20 PM
Ho-hum, just another day. Thoughts and prayers and yadda yadda yadda. Nothing is ever going to change about mass shootings in the USA, so there's no point even discussing it anymore. America LIKES mass shootings. That's why we refuse to prevent them.

Agreed.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kyle Schuant on February 14, 2018, 08:59:04 PM
its actually not a mental health problem. People suffering mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violence than to commit violence. Other western countries have similar rates of mental health disorders and do not have the same level of gun violence. Its a matter of access to lethal means to commit violence on a large scale.  lets not start stigmatising people with mental health problems.
I don't think that access to means is the whole story. Basically the US has 4 homicides per 100,000 people annually, and most of the Western world has under 1 per 100,000. But if you take all the firearms homicides out, it's still 1.5 or so - which is to say, even without firearms (let's assume 0 of the firearms homicides would become homicides by other means), the US has about 50% more homicides than other Western countries.

The US also has twice as many lethal car accidents as the rest of the Western world.

Quite simply, the US is the most violent and aggressive culture in the Western world. Yes, access to firearms matters, and yes, mental healthcare matters. But culture matters, too.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: jrhampt on February 15, 2018, 05:47:46 AM
its actually not a mental health problem. People suffering mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violence than to commit violence. Other western countries have similar rates of mental health disorders and do not have the same level of gun violence. Its a matter of access to lethal means to commit violence on a large scale.  lets not start stigmatising people with mental health problems.
I don't think that access to means is the whole story. Basically the US has 4 homicides per 100,000 people annually, and most of the Western world has under 1 per 100,000. But if you take all the firearms homicides out, it's still 1.5 or so - which is to say, even without firearms (let's assume 0 of the firearms homicides would become homicides by other means), the US has about 50% more homicides than other Western countries.

The US also has twice as many lethal car accidents as the rest of the Western world.

Quite simply, the US is the most violent and aggressive culture in the Western world. Yes, access to firearms matters, and yes, mental healthcare matters. But culture matters, too.

To paraphrase a verse in the NT: Where your treasure is, there will your heart be, also.  We as a society value violence.  We spend a lot of money on guns and on our military. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on February 15, 2018, 07:02:08 AM
To paraphrase a verse in the NT: Where your treasure is, there will your heart be, also.  We as a society value violence.  We spend a lot of money on guns and on our military.

We also have drastic income inequality, a horrible healthcare system, for profit prisons, a war on drugs that essentially funnels money to criminals (and the prisons mentioned above), a reality-show caliber media, and a giant population with virtually unlimited demographics. Let's not pretend guns are the only difference between the US and other countries.

We have cities bigger than some of the European countries we're so often compared to, and have roughly 10x the population of Canada, the UK, or Australia.  We're also nextdoor neighbors to a country with a 17/100k homicide rate, roughly 4x our own.

Last year the UK had a bombing which killed 23 people and injured 400. If you scale that up by population that is the equivalent to roughly 200 people in the US being killed with over 3000 injured. You could have a bombing/vehicle terrorist attack that kills nearly 20 people and injures 350 once a month in the US, and it would be the equivalent to the one event in Britain as far as population goes, but would make the US feel much more dangerous just because of our enormous sample size. That is the kind of misleading that I'm talking about when we use absolute numbers instead of rates or proportions. While the US is roughly 5x more violent than Australia or a similar country, you can expect to see 50x as many news stories and grandiose events due to our population difference, exaggerating the problem by a factor of 10. Even if the US were exactly as peaceful as Australia, you would still expect to see roughly 10x as many reports of crime and murder occurring in the US as you did in Australia, which would make the US feel much more dangerous.

Additionally, as I've pointed out numerous times before, the ratio between Australia and the US's murder rate has remained roughly consistent since the 90's, when Australia's harsher gun laws were enacted. Yes, Australia's rate decreased, but so did the US at roughly the same rate. There's something other than gun laws that accounts for the difference between us, otherwise you would've expected Australia to drastically widen the gap in that time.

As for the "well police should be doing their job better," no shit. That doesn't really make me feel any safer though. It's like telling a girl after she's been raped she shouldn't carry anything for defense because men shouldn't do that and police should help her. Yeah that's true, but we live in the real world, and what "should" happen doesn't mean a whole lot when shit goes down. Nobody cares more about your safety than you, similar to your money or your happiness.

edit: And I'm not saying the US doesn't have a problem with violence, I'm trying to put into perspective the constant media bombardment that uses absolute numbers and exaggerates the issues.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 15, 2018, 07:44:15 AM
Last year the UK had a bombing which killed 23 people and injured 400. If you scale that up by population that is the equivalent to roughly 200 people in the US being killed with over 3000 injured. You could have a bombing/vehicle terrorist attack that kills nearly 20 people and injures 350 once a month in the US, and it would be the equivalent to the one event in Britain as far as population goes, but would make the US feel much more dangerous just because of our enormous sample size. That is the kind of misleading that I'm talking about when we use absolute numbers instead of rates or proportions. While the US is roughly 5x more violent than Australia or a similar country, you can expect to see 50x as many news stories and grandiose events due to our population difference, exaggerating the problem by a factor of 10. Even if the US were exactly as peaceful as Australia, you would still expect to see roughly 10x as many reports of crime and murder occurring in the US as you did in Australia, which would make the US feel much more dangerous.

Firstly, I want to be very clear that I don't disagree with what you're saying. We have a violence problem. We have a media problem. (Problems?)

I do, however, have a slight qualm with your UK bombing example. Bombs don't scale the way population does. You can only fit so many bodies into the effective radius of a given device, the size of the country doesn't matter much, only local density. Short of attacking a stadium or large urban building--which are substantially similar in most developed nations regardless of geography or population--you just aren't going to see 200/3000 range numbers in a bomb attack.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 15, 2018, 08:11:50 AM
As for the "well police should be doing their job better," no shit. That doesn't really make me feel any safer though.

Given that the supreme court has rules that police officers that don't need to protect anyone as part of their job, it shouldn't make you feel any better.  That decision is a giant roadblock for anyone who wants to live in a safer country.  You can thank the appointment of conservative judges for it.


It's like telling a girl after she's been raped she shouldn't carry anything for defense because men shouldn't do that and police should help her. Yeah that's true, but we live in the real world, and what "should" happen doesn't mean a whole lot when shit goes down. Nobody cares more about your safety than you, similar to your money or your happiness.

This is not an argument (or even like an argument) put forth in this thread, but keep raging against that straw man.  He won't hit back.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 15, 2018, 08:31:42 AM
8 proposals with >60% public support.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWCI9PwVAAUUHNN.jpg)

Congress won't enact a single one.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 15, 2018, 09:43:32 AM
8 proposals with >60% public support.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWCI9PwVAAUUHNN.jpg)

Congress won't enact a single one.

Can you cite the source of this data, DaS?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 15, 2018, 10:50:47 AM
there's also a huge negative because those who are less strong and physical no longer have a way to defend themselves.

This isn't really an individual's responsibility though.  It's the job of the police, public planners, and government in a country to provide a safe place for it's people to live.  Relying on guns as some kind of universal protection is silly in a lot of cases.  Guns are not too useful for a lot of vulnerable people  . . those with certain physical disabilities and diseases (Parkinson's, MS, GB syndrome, etc.), the elderly who have trouble with their joints/shaky hands/any form of dementia/Alzheimer's, anyone with mental problems, people with a previous criminal record, etc.  Nobody in a society should tolerate such a poorly run a state of affairs that it is necessary to arm yourself to be safe.

I'm guessing most victims of violent crime would prefer access to self defense rather than the platitude that they shouldn't have to defend themselves. I certainly don't think the fact that they shouldn't have to protect themselves makes it less immoral to deprive them of the ability to defend themselves. If anything, it makes it worse.

I'm guessing that most victims of violent crimes would prefer not to be victims of violent crimes rather than to have to live the rest of their lives armed and terrified.  The best way to bring about that situation is not greater access to firearms for all, but for better policing and crime prevention strategies.
  And you won't them defenseless while we also don't do anything particularly different?  That's pretty callous. 

As was mentioned previously, there are a lot of people for whom guns cannot be used for self defense.  If you're relying on folks to arm themselves rather to correct the safety problem, what is your suggestion to these people?

I think you are projecting your callousness on them.  You think those vulnerable people would really feel better if they made other people more vulnerable?  I mean I guess that would make them stick out as potential victims a little less, but I doubt that's really what they're looking for. 

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 15, 2018, 10:58:55 AM
there's also a huge negative because those who are less strong and physical no longer have a way to defend themselves.

This isn't really an individual's responsibility though.  It's the job of the police, public planners, and government in a country to provide a safe place for it's people to live.  Relying on guns as some kind of universal protection is silly in a lot of cases.  Guns are not too useful for a lot of vulnerable people  . . those with certain physical disabilities and diseases (Parkinson's, MS, GB syndrome, etc.), the elderly who have trouble with their joints/shaky hands/any form of dementia/Alzheimer's, anyone with mental problems, people with a previous criminal record, etc.  Nobody in a society should tolerate such a poorly run a state of affairs that it is necessary to arm yourself to be safe.

I'm guessing most victims of violent crime would prefer access to self defense rather than the platitude that they shouldn't have to defend themselves. I certainly don't think the fact that they shouldn't have to protect themselves makes it less immoral to deprive them of the ability to defend themselves. If anything, it makes it worse.

I'm guessing that most victims of violent crimes would prefer not to be victims of violent crimes rather than to have to live the rest of their lives armed and terrified.  The best way to bring about that situation is not greater access to firearms for all, but for better policing and crime prevention strategies.
  And you won't them defenseless while we also don't do anything particularly different?  That's pretty callous. 

As was mentioned previously, there are a lot of people for whom guns cannot be used for self defense.  If you're relying on folks to arm themselves rather to correct the safety problem, what is your suggestion to these people?

I think you are projecting your callousness on them.  You think those vulnerable people would really feel better if they made other people more vulnerable?  I mean I guess that would make them stick out as potential victims a little less, but I doubt that's really what they're looking for.

I think you have misread my posts.  I don't advocate making anyone more vulnerable.  Quite the opposite.

Rather than 'The police suck, we should all arm ourselves to the teeth to go get some milk' it's 'The police suck, we should change things for the better.'  In the former (assuming you believe that a more heavily armed society is going to be safer - which is dubious to begin with) you're admitting failure for a whole class of people (the ones who can't, won't, or are unable to own firearms).  In the latter you're working on a nation wide problem - an environment where the need to own a gun out of fear is radically reduced is better for everyone.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 15, 2018, 11:11:48 AM
8 proposals with >60% public support.

Congress won't enact a single one.

Can you cite the source of this data, DaS?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html

There are more than 8 with that amount of support (in fact, 20 measures polled received 59% or more public support) but those 8 were deemed to be likely the most effective by experts.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 15, 2018, 11:23:03 AM
8 proposals with >60% public support.

Congress won't enact a single one.

Can you cite the source of this data, DaS?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html

There are more than 8 with that amount of support (in fact, 20 measures polled received 59% or more public support) but those 8 were deemed to be likely the most effective by experts.

Thank you!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 15, 2018, 11:36:58 AM
This article also had some good charts/data: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/15/17016396/trump-parkland-florida-school-shooting
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zoltani on February 15, 2018, 11:52:59 AM
If only it was illegal to bring a gun on school property, this wouldn't happen.

I wonder what mentally ill meds this murderer was on.

Looks like he was high on guns and MAGA.

https://www.truthexam.com/2018/02/breaking-the-shooter-in-the-florida-shooting-has-been-identified-and-its-not-good/

What a sensational echo chamber that site is, Jesus. They even quote fucking 4chan in another article, the height of journalistic integrity!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 15, 2018, 01:31:47 PM
If only it was illegal to bring a gun on school property, this wouldn't happen.

I wonder what mentally ill meds this murderer was on.

Looks like he was high on guns and MAGA.

https://www.truthexam.com/2018/02/breaking-the-shooter-in-the-florida-shooting-has-been-identified-and-its-not-good/

What a sensational echo chamber that site is, Jesus. They even quote fucking 4chan in another article, the height of journalistic integrity!

Vox for FiveThirtyEight (can't remember which) did cite the leader of a white supremacist group ("Republic of Florida" IIRC?) as saying he was a member.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zoltani on February 15, 2018, 01:54:28 PM
If only it was illegal to bring a gun on school property, this wouldn't happen.

I wonder what mentally ill meds this murderer was on.

Looks like he was high on guns and MAGA.

https://www.truthexam.com/2018/02/breaking-the-shooter-in-the-florida-shooting-has-been-identified-and-its-not-good/

What a sensational echo chamber that site is, Jesus. They even quote fucking 4chan in another article, the height of journalistic integrity!

Vox for FiveThirtyEight (can't remember which) did cite the leader of a white supremacist group ("Republic of Florida" IIRC?) as saying he was a member.

He also said he had "trouble with a girl" and he believed the timing of the attack, carried out on Valentine's Day, wasn't a coincidence.

For a white supremacist he sure did shoot a lot of white people.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 15, 2018, 02:00:44 PM
Nice 'no true scotsman' fallacy there.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zoltani on February 15, 2018, 02:04:28 PM
Nice 'no true scotsman' fallacy there.

Thanks buddy!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 15, 2018, 02:22:46 PM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wexler on February 15, 2018, 04:16:54 PM
After reading more about this shooting and the shooter in particular, I'm taking the position that guns / gun laws / access to guns did not cause this tragedy.

This person was mentally unstable and not capable of fitting into our society.  This person was determined to cause great harm to a lot of people.  If he didn't have access to guns I expect he would have used another means.  We would be reading about a bombing or a case of mass vehicular homicide like we have seen in places where guns are harder to get. 

This person was already identified as a threat, investigated by the FBI, and treated for mental health issues.  Then he 'slipped through the cracks' and ended up doing just what everyone feared he would do. 

So what does this have to do with the instrument he used to kill?  Not much I think.  We can debate if the numbers would be different if he used a bomb, car or samurai sword, but it's hard to tell.  What we may agree on is this person wanted to kill people, and he would have done it regardless of laws or access to a particular weapon.

I don't know all the details, this is only my opinion.  I'm wondering what could have been done?  People have freedoms in this country and it's hard to get help for someone that refuses it.  There are many others like him that we have identified as potential threats.  Do we take away certain rights from these people, and would it matter if they are determined?  Do we take away the persons freedom altogether? 

There is no easy solution.

Samurai sword?  Are you kidding me?

There are solutions.  It's just that a vocal minority of people who like guns as a hobby because it makes them feel powerful in a changing world are standing in the way of implementing them.  We could start with insurance liability.  Do you think the family that took this kid in would have been like "oh-it's fine-have an arsenal" if their homeowner's insurance were priced to account for the risk of a 19 year old with mental health problems and his guns?  Hell no. What if any of the white supremacists who likely straw sold him some of those guns were hauled into jail?  I think that people would be a lot less likely to sell guns to their Nazi-curious friends if they suddenly had liability on the table.

And those are just a couple of solutions.  None of the mainstream proposal on the table involve grabbing all guns.  Universal background checks, liability, storage and registration requirements, stricter monitoring of domestic violence perpetrators, etc.  We are awash in solutions.  What we lack is political will.

If you want to change political will, start voting for democrats. Up and down the ballot.  Grab a nonvoting friend and get them to vote for democrats.  When politicians fear the political will of engaged democrats as much as they fear pissing off racist old people, then we'll see change.



Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zoltani on February 15, 2018, 05:19:19 PM
Nice 'no true scotsman' fallacy there.

Oops!

“We are still doing some work, but we have no known ties between the ROF, Jordan Jereb or the Broward shooter,” a Leon County Sheriff’s Office spokesman told the Tallahassee Democrat. The sheriff’s office has arrested Jereb at least four times since January 2014 and has been monitoring ROF’s membership, The Associated Press reported."

"On Thursday afternoon, members of The Right Stuff, a white supremacist forum, claimed that the story of Cruz being tied to ROF was false. “Started out as an inside joke until Jordan Jereb literally told the media that it was true and that he was affiliated with a school shooter,” a TRS user posting under the name “Jordan Fash” wrote. 

Fash posted screenshots of an ABC reporter messaging a user named “Ethan” on Instagram asking for information about Cruz. Ethan told the reporter that Cruz was an ROF member. “It was common knowledge he did rallies with ROF, I frequently saw him conversing with Jordan Jereb in person,” the user said.

The ABC reporter declined to comment. ABC didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on how it reported its story."

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 15, 2018, 05:50:21 PM
I didn't suggest that he was or wasn't a white supremacist.  You were saying that he couldn't be a white supremacist from what appeared to be the argument that no true white supremacists would kill a white person . . . which is the fallacy that I was pointing out.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zoltani on February 15, 2018, 06:16:05 PM
I didn't suggest that he was or wasn't a white supremacist.  You were saying that he couldn't be a white supremacist from what appeared to be the argument that no true white supremacists would kill a white person . . . which is the fallacy that I was pointing out.

I did not say he couldn't be. I was pointing out that the story is fishy because there is no evidence that the attack was racially motivated at all, especially when you consider most victims were white. I'm looking at the facts and making my own conclusions. You're welcome to buy whatever narrative is pushed without thought though.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kyle Schuant on February 15, 2018, 08:34:21 PM
This is something the US will never address, because the questions it must ask of itself are like the questions Japan would have if it talked about Unit 731, or Turkey about the Armenian genocide. There are systemic cultural issues here, which nobody will address.


Instead, firearms in the US are like the Maltese Falcon: not really the story, just something to move other stories forward, like Rep vs Dem.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: px4shooter on February 15, 2018, 10:05:03 PM
There are systemic cultural issues here, which nobody will address.



Just look at violent crime rate and murder rate among certain subcultures. Add that these same acts often occur in the most regulated areas for firearms. And then there is the political side of these areas too, which is mainly liberal.

On the other side, there is the mental illness. In the 80's, the funding for mental illness treatment was severely cut. Mentally ill were gradually left out of treatment and you now see the results of decades of mental illness neglect. Couple that with certain prescriptions being frequently involved in these types of events, and you have a pretty good road map of issues.

Just like this recent Florida case. Mental illness. FBI was told about his issues and threats. Still nothing was done. Recent posts about prepping for the act went unnoticed too.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 16, 2018, 06:18:02 AM
For a white supremacist he sure did shoot a lot of white people.

I don't think it's so much about the victims' ethnic backgrounds as it is the general propensity for violence among extreme ideologues. Whether or not he actually had ties to Republic of Florida remains an open question, but there were also other accounts of him saying things that align with the far right. It's still early in the investigation, and it sounds like there will be a fair amount of social media and photo evidence to go on.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on February 16, 2018, 07:20:26 AM
Firstly, I want to be very clear that I don't disagree with what you're saying. We have a violence problem. We have a media problem. (Problems?)

I do, however, have a slight qualm with your UK bombing example. Bombs don't scale the way population does. You can only fit so many bodies into the effective radius of a given device, the size of the country doesn't matter much, only local density. Short of attacking a stadium or large urban building--which are substantially similar in most developed nations regardless of geography or population--you just aren't going to see 200/3000 range numbers in a bomb attack.

My example wasn't meant to say it's the equivalent of a giant bomb. I'm saying it's the equivalent of seeing the exact same event happen every 5 weeks for the entire year in the US. It could happen 10x as many times in a given time frame, and still be equal at a per capita level. If the US saw 9 of those bombings in a year, it would actually be SAFER in the US, despite having 9x as many bombings plastered on the media nearly monthly.

Which country seems more dangerous, one that has 1 bombing killing 20 people in a year, or one that has 9 bombings killing 20 people in a year? In the UK it would be considered a tragedy, in the US it would be considered an epidemic (despite it actually being safer in the US in this example) because people think about these things in absolute numbers and how often it's on the news rather than based on the size of the country.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 16, 2018, 07:28:52 AM
Firstly, I want to be very clear that I don't disagree with what you're saying. We have a violence problem. We have a media problem. (Problems?)

I do, however, have a slight qualm with your UK bombing example. Bombs don't scale the way population does. You can only fit so many bodies into the effective radius of a given device, the size of the country doesn't matter much, only local density. Short of attacking a stadium or large urban building--which are substantially similar in most developed nations regardless of geography or population--you just aren't going to see 200/3000 range numbers in a bomb attack.

My example wasn't meant to say it's the equivalent of a giant bomb. I'm saying it's the equivalent of seeing the exact same event happen every 5 weeks for the entire year in the US. It could happen 10x as many times in a given time frame, and still be equal at a per capita level. If the US saw 9 of those bombings in a year, it would actually be SAFER in the US, despite having 9x as many bombings plastered on the media nearly monthly.

Which country seems more dangerous, one that has 1 bombing killing 20 people in a year, or one that has 9 bombings killing 20 people in a year? In the UK it would be considered a tragedy, in the US it would be considered an epidemic because people think about these things in absolute numbers and how often it's on the news rather than based on the size of the country.

I guess I just disagree that you can judge it on a per capita basis. Part of it is if individuals or groups (whether coordinated or not) were able to plan and carry out that many attacks, it would be a huge policing failure. I just don't think it scales with population in a linear fashion, if that makes sense?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on February 16, 2018, 07:45:59 AM
I guess I just disagree that you can judge it on a per capita basis. Part of it is if individuals or groups (whether coordinated or not) were able to plan and carry out that many attacks, it would be a huge policing failure. I just don't think it scales with population in a linear fashion, if that makes sense?

How can you not judge it on a per capita basis? There are 10x as many people, so 10x as many crazy people who want to kill a bunch of people (assuming similar populations).

To take it to an extreme, are you saying we should expect a country with 1,000,000,000 people to experience the same quantity of mass violence incidents as a country of 10,000? If the country of 1 billion has 200 incidents and the country with 10,000 has 100 incidents, which do you think is safer to live in?

edit: If you just looked at news headlines for the two countries, the 10k population one would certainly seem safer due to the lower number of incidents, assuming all of them made national news both places.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on February 16, 2018, 08:08:18 AM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

Shoot! I mean go for it! It can be a problem.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on February 16, 2018, 08:49:22 AM
I keep coming back to the individual.  0.0001% of our population has the mental state and capability to plan and execute these terrible attacks.  How can we better identify, monitor and prevent them from following through with their plans?  This particular person raised every red flag in the book and we were unwilling/unable to stop him.

The problem is any demographic he belonged to most likely has 1000's of similar people who never do anything wrong. Innocent until proven guilty is a pretty big deal in the US, I think for good reason, but the weakness it does have is sometimes it lets guilty/dangerous people roam free.

If we want total safety, we need total security and total control, and to be okay with locking up shitloads of people who never would've done anything wrong in order to catch the few who would. We already imprison the most people per capita of anywhere in the world by a hefty portion, so I'm not sure more liberal imprisonment requirements are really the way to go.

The TSA was our last attempt at a similar problem, and currently costs $7 billion a year not including the time wasted by millions of people every year at it, not to mention the breaching of privacy we're becoming scarily accustomed to.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wexler on February 16, 2018, 10:28:45 AM
After reading more about this shooting and the shooter in particular, I'm taking the position that guns / gun laws / access to guns did not cause this tragedy.

This person was mentally unstable and not capable of fitting into our society.  This person was determined to cause great harm to a lot of people.  If he didn't have access to guns I expect he would have used another means.  We would be reading about a bombing or a case of mass vehicular homicide like we have seen in places where guns are harder to get. 

This person was already identified as a threat, investigated by the FBI, and treated for mental health issues.  Then he 'slipped through the cracks' and ended up doing just what everyone feared he would do. 

So what does this have to do with the instrument he used to kill?  Not much I think.  We can debate if the numbers would be different if he used a bomb, car or samurai sword, but it's hard to tell.  What we may agree on is this person wanted to kill people, and he would have done it regardless of laws or access to a particular weapon.

I don't know all the details, this is only my opinion.  I'm wondering what could have been done?  People have freedoms in this country and it's hard to get help for someone that refuses it.  There are many others like him that we have identified as potential threats.  Do we take away certain rights from these people, and would it matter if they are determined?  Do we take away the persons freedom altogether? 

There is no easy solution.

Samurai sword?  Are you kidding me?

There are solutions.  It's just that a vocal minority of people who like guns as a hobby because it makes them feel powerful in a changing world are standing in the way of implementing them.  We could start with insurance liability.  Do you think the family that took this kid in would have been like "oh-it's fine-have an arsenal" if their homeowner's insurance were priced to account for the risk of a 19 year old with mental health problems and his guns?  Hell no. What if any of the white supremacists who likely straw sold him some of those guns were hauled into jail?  I think that people would be a lot less likely to sell guns to their Nazi-curious friends if they suddenly had liability on the table.

And those are just a couple of solutions.  None of the mainstream proposal on the table involve grabbing all guns.  Universal background checks, liability, storage and registration requirements, stricter monitoring of domestic violence perpetrators, etc.  We are awash in solutions.  What we lack is political will.

If you want to change political will, start voting for democrats. Up and down the ballot.  Grab a nonvoting friend and get them to vote for democrats.  When politicians fear the political will of engaged democrats as much as they fear pissing off racist old people, then we'll see change.

Many of the laws you're proposing make sense, though some like liability/storage may be difficult to enforce in all but extremely negligent cases.  The insurance aspect would probably not work as I'm not sure insurers would want to take this risk and it's unlikely people would pay for the insurance.  Remember that most people don't have much to lose in the first place.

Let's say we implement all of them anyways, will it really help stop nutcases from getting their hands on weapons and following through with their plans?  I don't think these measures are strong enough to be effective.

I think reduced magazine capacities could help, provided there are brave individuals ready to take action during reloads.  Beyond that, we would need significant, second amendment defying restrictions on ownership.  This country isn't ready for that yet.

I keep coming back to the individual.  0.0001% of our population has the mental state and capability to plan and execute these terrible attacks.  How can we better identify, monitor and prevent them from following through with their plans?  This particular person raised every red flag in the book and we were unwilling/unable to stop him.

Actually, many mass shooters come from upper middle class backgrounds.  Their families would have a great deal to lose under liability laws.  Just having to pay an extra $1000/year in insurance would probably be enough financial incentive for regional manager Steve to rethink having a gun safe.  And if a registration to his 18 year old unemployed son tied to his address comes through, then the insurance company can adjust his rates to compensate.

In Florida, the governor signed a law barring physicians from asking about guns in the home.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/17/515764335/court-strikes-down-florida-law-barring-doctors-from-discussing-guns-with-patient
That law was just struck down in 2017, and went into effect in 2014.  So, during many of the years that the Florida shooter was being treated for mental health issues, his providers were barred from asking his family about guns and educating them about potential risks.  One solution is to stop fucking voting for Republicans who sign legislation like this and who let it fester before the court has to step in.  What if Adam Lanza's doctors, as part of their mental health assessment for him prior to him being committed (a possible trigger for the Sandy Hook shooting), required his mother to take immediate action with regard to the arsenal of firearms in the home?  What if there were a law that stated that involuntary commission required doctors to ask about guns in the home?  Conservatives are stoked to require doctors to provide factually incorrect information about links between breast cancer and abortion, so they can't possibly object to laws that require doctors to provide education as a matter of principle.

The Florida shooter raised flags, those flags WERE REPORTED (take note, Trump), but because of the laxity of our gun laws, those reports withered and died.  For a report to have teeth, there has to be a law that can be applied.  Our current laws are "meh."  The gag law signed by Rick Scott should be an affront to reasonable gun owners.  However, because Republicans are NEVER punished for their actions by their voters,politicians continue to kiss NRA ass, and the NRA keeps one-clicking to buy their legislative wish lists.  Start punishing politicians at the polls.  Vote. Don't let your friends get away with not voting.  Bug your family.  Shame the nonvoters around you.  Get people registered.



 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 16, 2018, 11:16:49 AM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

If you really want to slander the three men who gave their lives trying to shield the students from bullets and how toxic their masculinity was, jump right ahead.   
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 16, 2018, 11:20:05 AM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

If you really want to slander the three men who gave their lives trying to shield the students from bullets and how toxic their masculinity was, jump right ahead.

straw man
ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 16, 2018, 11:31:56 AM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

If you really want to slander the three men who gave their lives trying to shield the students from bullets and how toxic their masculinity was, jump right ahead.

I think Kris was referring to "toxic masculinity" as a personality feature, not that masculinity, in general, is toxic.

I don't think any reasonable person would file protecting others from violent attack as toxic, masculine or otherwise.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on February 16, 2018, 11:34:34 AM
After reading more about this shooting and the shooter in particular, I'm taking the position that guns / gun laws / access to guns did not cause this tragedy.

This person was mentally unstable and not capable of fitting into our society. ...

There is no easy solution.


 We could start with insurance liability. ....

And those are just a couple of solutions.  None of the mainstream proposal on the table involve grabbing all guns.  Universal background checks, liability, storage and registration requirements, stricter monitoring of domestic violence perpetrators, etc.  We are awash in solutions.  What we lack is political will.



I excised some of your post to get to the relevant part for me, and many pro2nd Amendment types.

You'll "start" there? Where will you finish? Once the 2nd Amendment is abolished?

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 16, 2018, 11:39:30 AM
You'll "start" there? Where will you finish? Once the 2nd Amendment is abolished?

We can keep the 2nd Amendment.  You're welcome to join a "well regulated militia" as well.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on February 16, 2018, 11:45:42 AM
You'll "start" there? Where will you finish? Once the 2nd Amendment is abolished?

We can keep the 2nd Amendment.  You're welcome to join a "well regulated militia" as well.

Are you familiar with how courts have interpreted the 2nd Amendment?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on February 16, 2018, 12:12:20 PM
You'll "start" there? Where will you finish? Once the 2nd Amendment is abolished?

We can keep the 2nd Amendment.  You're welcome to join a "well regulated militia" as well.

Are you familiar with how courts have interpreted the 2nd Amendment?
Or more importantly, what Militia actually means? (the collective group of all fighting aged individuals)   The second amend's protection of a individuals right to bear arms is more solid than a court interpration... even if it was the right one.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 16, 2018, 12:16:35 PM
Quote
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller)



Modern court interpretations have been quite different, but there was a time when the supreme court figured that a well regulated militia actually meant what it said.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wexler on February 16, 2018, 01:01:15 PM
After reading more about this shooting and the shooter in particular, I'm taking the position that guns / gun laws / access to guns did not cause this tragedy.

This person was mentally unstable and not capable of fitting into our society. ...

There is no easy solution.



 We could start with insurance liability. ....

And those are just a couple of solutions.  None of the mainstream proposal on the table involve grabbing all guns.  Universal background checks, liability, storage and registration requirements, stricter monitoring of domestic violence perpetrators, etc.  We are awash in solutions.  What we lack is political will.



I excised some of your post to get to the relevant part for me, and many pro2nd Amendment types.

You'll "start" there? Where will you finish? Once the 2nd Amendment is abolished?

I never said that.  Do pro 2nd amendment types see invisible words?  I offered concrete examples, one of which was insurance liability.  Let's start taking action there.  There is no invisible "and stop when we overturn the 2nd"  Put your gun down-I'm not grabbing it.

If you can't discuss specific examples and get on board with specific legislation, there's no hope.  I mean, legislation according to any of these ideas will have words that bind and limit it.  That's how laws work. 

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 16, 2018, 01:25:49 PM

I never said that.  Do pro 2nd amendment types see invisible words?  I offered concrete examples, one of which was insurance liability.  Let's start taking action there.  There is no invisible "and stop when we overturn the 2nd"  Put your gun down-I'm not grabbing it.

If you can't discuss specific examples and get on board with specific legislation, there's no hope.  I mean, legislation according to any of these ideas will have words that bind and limit it.  That's how laws work.

The insurance thing is interesting.  Most insurance the actual rate isn't set, the requirement to have it is, and then the liability is determined by the carriers.  In some specific instances the government steps in to essentially subsidize the rate, or maybe be the issuer (like flood insurance), but I'm curious what you think would be a sufficient number to achieve your outcome.

For instance, in this recent Florida shooting, the $1000 number you cited, I see two problems with that.  The first is that for a 19 year old, $1,000 isn't an insurmountable amount of cash, it's less than the total all-in cost of a vehicle at this point, which would still make the gun preferable to the van as an instrument of mass destruction.  Likewise, based on a rough calculation, I don't think the liability for gun violence would end up causing the premium for gun insurance to be $1,000/yr.  It's going to be closer to $50.00.

You could set the insured amount higher, require 1mil in insurance per round capacity, but that's really easy to get around and would only boost sales of one round clips and kill sales of revolvers.

There's also the problem of when it gets paid.  There's a ton of things that require insurance now where you essentially get billed for it, so the problem of someone going to the store, signing up for the insurance, walking out with the guns and ammo, committing the crime, and suicide before paying the insurance bill, that's still there.

If you mean more like a bonding type thing, where you have to be bonded to own a gun, and it's a very expensive bond, on the order of fifty thousand or so, that would probably work.  You'd certainly stop most kids from being able to pull it off, and most adults too would end up trading the gun in for the return of the bond, using the cash to get their life back in order before they needed to go postal.  I like the bond idea, maybe grandfather it so we deal with this for another couple decades before the problem goes away.

But that's what he meant Wexler.  He meant that your solutions have problems that won't prevent alot of this in the near term, and so he doesn't believe you when you say you won't come take his guns.  Because while I'm on board with trying something, this isn't an irrational fear:

Shooting happens > We have to do something! > New legislation > Shooting happens > We have to do something!

This is the history of gun restrictions in the U.S.  It rarely ever goes the other way, that a piece of gun ownership restricting legislation is repealed once it's found not to stop the thing we wanted to stop.  So if you did intend to have the conversation, you can't be dismissive of this.  You can point out, and it is totally fair to do it:

To the second amendment advocates:  Get your shit together, work this out, keep this stuff from happening, or we will call a constitutional convention and you will lose this right.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 16, 2018, 01:42:56 PM
Shooting happens > We have to do something! > New legislation > Shooting happens > We have to do something!

This is the history of gun restrictions in the U.S.  It rarely ever goes the other way, that a piece of gun ownership restricting legislation is repealed once it's found not to stop the thing we wanted to stop.  So if you did intend to have the conversation, you can't be dismissive of this.

This must be why gun ownership in the US is so difficult.  An endless cycle of gun restriction.  Like . . . uh . . . fully automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns!  And . . . pretty much nothing else.  And you can still own fully automatic weapons . . . it's just more difficult.

So damned restrictive.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dycker1978 on February 16, 2018, 01:48:22 PM
Shooting happens > We have to do something! > New legislation > Shooting happens > We have to do something!

This is the history of gun restrictions in the U.S.  It rarely ever goes the other way, that a piece of gun ownership restricting legislation is repealed once it's found not to stop the thing we wanted to stop.  So if you did intend to have the conversation, you can't be dismissive of this.

This must be why gun ownership in the US is so difficult.  An endless cycle of gun restriction.  Like . . . uh . . . fully automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns!  And . . . pretty much nothing else.  And you can still own fully automatic weapons . . . it's just more difficult.

So damned restrictive.

Not to mention bump stocks, those basically make a full auto weapon out of a semi auto.  From everything I have found on google they are still legal, no changes since Vegas
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 16, 2018, 02:09:20 PM
Shooting happens > We have to do something! > New legislation > Shooting happens > We have to do something!

This is the history of gun restrictions in the U.S.  It rarely ever goes the other way, that a piece of gun ownership restricting legislation is repealed once it's found not to stop the thing we wanted to stop.  So if you did intend to have the conversation, you can't be dismissive of this.

This must be why gun ownership in the US is so difficult.  An endless cycle of gun restriction.  Like . . . uh . . . fully automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns!  And . . . pretty much nothing else.  And you can still own fully automatic weapons . . . it's just more difficult.

So damned restrictive.

*rubs temple*  It's how progressivism works.  Literally the blueprint.  Once again I'm on your side pleading with you to stop trolling.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 16, 2018, 03:13:07 PM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

If you really want to slander the three men who gave their lives trying to shield the students from bullets and how toxic their masculinity was, jump right ahead.

I think Kris was referring to "toxic masculinity" as a personality feature, not that masculinity, in general, is toxic.

I don't think any reasonable person would file protecting others from violent attack as toxic, masculine or otherwise.

I don't think any reasonable person would file taking a gun and shooting unarmed children as masculine. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 16, 2018, 03:16:37 PM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

If you really want to slander the three men who gave their lives trying to shield the students from bullets and how toxic their masculinity was, jump right ahead.

I think Kris was referring to "toxic masculinity" as a personality feature, not that masculinity, in general, is toxic.

I don't think any reasonable person would file protecting others from violent attack as toxic, masculine or otherwise.

I don't think any reasonable person would file taking a gun and shooting unarmed children as masculine.

Here, Jrr85, I think you might need some help with this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_masculinity

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: blackknight89 on February 16, 2018, 07:00:27 PM
How is it that we expect a "gun-free zone" sign to protect our schools? The shooter yesterday killed 17 people in 3 minutes. https://www.apnews.com/a6fd450470d4464ab423b8b3a911b42d . I don't know what the police response time is to the schools in your area, but given the size of the high school where the shooting happened yesterday they could have been down the street and still be unable to respond in time.

So if the police won't be there in time, how can you stop someone who goes to a school with a gun and the intent to kill? The only way to stop a psychopath with a gun is with another gun. If people are serious about stopping tragedies like this from happen, then harden the target. Our society has no problem with firearms protecting our government, our banks, our corporations, and many other places. Why are we so against such protections at our schools. Nearly every mass shooting occurs in a "gun-free" zone, where signs advertise the absence of resistance. Many of these killers commit suicide when confronted by law enforcement or someone with a gun.

The most effective deterrent to someone who obtains a gun and wants to kill innocent people is the threat of being confronted by someone with a firearm and the training to use it. If some teachers don't want to have to carry a gun at school, that's fine. Armed security and controlling access to schools needs money and time to implement. But those "gun-free" signs could be gone tomorrow. Over 15 million Americans have concealed carry permits.

If you believe that it is possible to keep people with murderous intentions from obtaining firearms, you need a lesson in math. I live in a state where nearly every regulation that I have seen proposed as a way of stopping mass shootings has been passed into law over the past 30 years or so. "Assault weapon" bans, magazine limits, universal background checks, etc. Yet in the past 5 years I found over a half dozen instances where unarmed people were shot and killed in a "gun-free" zone.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 17, 2018, 02:43:27 AM
The most effective deterrent to someone who obtains a gun and wants to kill innocent people is the threat of being confronted by someone with a firearm and the training to use it. If some teachers don't want to have to carry a gun at school, that's fine. Armed security and controlling access to schools needs money and time to implement. But those "gun-free" signs could be gone tomorrow. Over 15 million Americans have concealed carry permits.

I don't believe escalation is the answer. Where does it end? Once all students are armed with guns?

Did the alarm bells not sound that society needs to change when people believed it necessary to have security guards at schools?

Turning schools into prisons isn't a solution I'd want for my children. Sounds like a fucking horrible place to go to learn and spend the majority of ones youth.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kyle Schuant on February 17, 2018, 02:55:51 AM
When everyone is armed, there is no violence.

Like in Afghanistan!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: px4shooter on February 17, 2018, 11:39:32 AM
When everyone is armed, there is no violence.

Like in Afghanistan!

So, they arm themselves to protect from the violence. Or is the Taliban Utopia the ideal living environment?

Tell us why security in the school should not be armed? Or are firearms the only weapon you can think of? Let's go the UK way and start banning steak knives :)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 17, 2018, 12:05:26 PM
Worth noting that the armed police officer at the school wasn't able to stop the shooting. He never encountered the gunman.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on February 17, 2018, 12:29:48 PM
The most effective deterrent to someone who obtains a gun and wants to kill innocent people is the threat of being confronted by someone with a firearm and the training to use it. If some teachers don't want to have to carry a gun at school, that's fine. Armed security and controlling access to schools needs money and time to implement. But those "gun-free" signs could be gone tomorrow. Over 15 million Americans have concealed carry permits.

I don't believe escalation is the answer. Where does it end? Once all students are armed with guns?

Did the alarm bells not sound that society needs to change when people believed it necessary to have security guards at schools?

Turning schools into prisons isn't a solution I'd want for my children. Sounds like a fucking horrible place to go to learn and spend the majority of ones youth.

I feel like this sums up nicely one of the biggest disconnects between gun supporters and the rest of us. We don't believe that more weapons equals more safety. I remember reading about the Wild West as a kid and thinking how glad I am life isn't like that anymore. It seems like gun supporters want that lifestyle back.

I don't want my kids' teachers to have guns in school. I don't want there to be cops in school. I'm positive both only make this problem worse. I am baffled why anyone thinks more guns is a solution to the wrong people having and using guns. Crossfire, anyone? And really, how are police supposed to know who to take down if everyone is pulling a gun in school?

I'm happy to listen to any other solutions from gun owners that does not involve "arm more people".
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 17, 2018, 01:10:03 PM
A school shooting resulting in injury is happening every week.

Our Congress will do nothing.  Change Congress.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: blackknight89 on February 17, 2018, 02:10:47 PM

I don't believe escalation is the answer. Where does it end? Once all students are armed with guns?

Did the alarm bells not sound that society needs to change when people believed it necessary to have security guards at schools?

Turning schools into prisons isn't a solution I'd want for my children. Sounds like a fucking horrible place to go to learn and spend the majority of ones youth.

If you do not believe that escalation is the answer, then what do you believe that the answer is? So far I have seen many suggestions for legislation. Can we agree that criminals or those with criminal intent do not care if they break laws in the process? Murder has been against the law and punishable by death for centuries, yet they still happen.

I said nothing about lowering the age to buy a handgun to 14 and issuing concealed carry permits to teenagers. Generally speaking, you have to be 21 to purchase a handgun legally and I have never heard of civilians trying to concealed carry a rifle (worth noting that any rifle with a barrel under 16 inches is a "SBR" and requires ATF approval to possess).

I also support requiring a concealed carry permit to carry at a school, and would suggest that such a permit process require training that addresses how to respond in a school shooting situation. I also believe that this should be standardized across all 50 states. While we are at it, make it so that permit is legal anywhere that does not have controlled access and armed security (courthouses, airports, etc).

When everyone is armed, there is no violence.

Like in Afghanistan!

I would be willing to bet you have never set foot in Afghanistan. Please explain your comparison further.


I feel like this sums up nicely one of the biggest disconnects between gun supporters and the rest of us. We don't believe that more weapons equals more safety. I remember reading about the Wild West as a kid and thinking how glad I am life isn't like that anymore. It seems like gun supporters want that lifestyle back.

I don't want my kids' teachers to have guns in school. I don't want there to be cops in school. I'm positive both only make this problem worse. I am baffled why anyone thinks more guns is a solution to the wrong people having and using guns. Crossfire, anyone? And really, how are police supposed to know who to take down if everyone is pulling a gun in school?

I'm happy to listen to any other solutions from gun owners that does not involve "arm more people".


I don't think that your comparison between the wild west and any of what I suggested is valid. The extensive combination of alcohol and firearms has nothing in common with trained individuals with firearms that are hidden (concealed carry permit). Worth noting that such a permit does not allow to just take out your gun and wave it around whenever you want (brandishing). If you draw, it had better be to use it.

Can you detail the solutions that you believe would be more effective?

Worth noting that the armed police officer at the school wasn't able to stop the shooting. He never encountered the gunman.

1 armed officer for a school with 3000 students and uncontrolled access. Can't say I'm surprised. The school knew he was dangerous and all they chose to do was tell teachers to not allow him on campus. Perhaps if there was controlled access to the school they might have even had a clue that he was there.

A school shooting resulting in injury is happening every week.

Our Congress will do nothing.  Change Congress.

Congress excels at accomplishing nothing in practically every aspect.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on February 17, 2018, 08:22:39 PM
I'm pretty sure I asked gun owners for solutions because I have no idea where a compromise would be. I'm completely okay with banning guns, but realize that won't be happening. So, if gun owners want their access unchanged, they need to FIX. THIS. I have three kids I send to school every day with the thought passion through my mind that maybe they aren't coming home again. I no longer have faith in all these supposedly "responsible gun owners" to be responsible. If they actually were, why don't we see idiot parents put in jail when they leave their weapons unsecured and EUR toddler accidentally kills someone or themselves? Gun owners need to police their own if they want my respect back.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cressida on February 17, 2018, 10:11:42 PM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

If you really want to slander the three men who gave their lives trying to shield the students from bullets and how toxic their masculinity was, jump right ahead.

I think Kris was referring to "toxic masculinity" as a personality feature, not that masculinity, in general, is toxic.

I don't think any reasonable person would file protecting others from violent attack as toxic, masculine or otherwise.

I don't think any reasonable person would file taking a gun and shooting unarmed children as masculine.

All mass shooters are men.

Responding that not all men are mass shooters (a true statement) is just stating that it's not OK to talk about the problem of male mass shooters. Which is to say that we can't talk about the problem of mass shooters. That's pretty unhelpful, in my opinion.

If you are a man and you're not a mass shooter, relax. We're not talking about you.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cressida on February 17, 2018, 11:42:16 PM
I think this begins to explain the reason most mass shooters are male.  It has nothing to do with masculinity, it's about being a outcast with no emotional support.

Plenty of girls are outcasts with no emotional support. They don't go out and buy automatic weapons and murder people.

We can start addressing this by changing the culture; improving support and removing unreasonable expectations for young males.  Fix the issue that's disproportionately causing males to commit suicide and the mass shootings will also decline.

Oh right. There are no unreasonable expectations for young female people. No expectations that they will be eternally sexy and sexually available.

What are your thoughts on the fact that most shooters are male?

A disappointed sense of entitlement.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cressida on February 17, 2018, 11:57:56 PM
I get the feeling you aren't open to discussion, your remarks are dismissive without analysis.

No dude. I'm pointing out that female people experience the same difficulties that you say male people experience. Your argument (that male people are victimized by society and that's why they commit violent acts) falls down in the face of my evidence.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 18, 2018, 12:14:24 AM
If you do not believe that escalation is the answer, then what do you believe that the answer is? So far I have seen many suggestions for legislation. Can we agree that criminals or those with criminal intent do not care if they break laws in the process? Murder has been against the law and punishable by death for centuries, yet they still happen.

Agreed criminals do not care. But it's not just criminals killing people with guns. Avoidable accidents also contribute to the death toll.

The issue with guns is, as soon as one is drawn there is a 50% chance of injury. If you are injured you have a 50% chance of dying.

The way I see it is escalation leads to more incidents and more deaths. So what's the alternative? Nation wide mass removal of guns, without infriging your rights.

1. Nation wide gun registry. Any gun not registered is confiscated and destroyed.

2. Firearms license. Similar to drivers license. If you fire or are in possession of a gun and do not have a license it is confiscated and destroyed.

3. Higher grade licenses required for semi automatic weapons, assult rifles (pretty much any gun that isn't built for recreational hunting)

4. Secure storage requirements. You can argue the details but at the minimum guns and ammo separately secured when owner not at home, or transported in public.

5. The registered gun owner is liable for the damage caused by their guns. We can argue the extent. This is to ensure all transactions go through the registry, security requirements are followed, and thefys are reported.

6. Mandatory background checks, with right of appeal, and maxum decision time.

7. Generous buy back of guns purchased prior to change in laws coming into effect. All buy back guns are destroyed.

8. Statistical gathering of all gun related incidents focused on improving background check markers and training requirements.

9. Mass education on responsible gun ownership.

The kicker is this has to be nation wide. A single state will be ineffective as criminals will simply source from another state.

As a gun owner, what do you get out of it?

1. No one taking your guns.

2. Knowledge that all other owners are moving towards greater responsibility.

3. Knowledge that police can effectively remove guns from the criminal population.

If you want to put a time limit on these laws, go for it. 50 years (2 generations) should be sufficient to see if it's effective.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 18, 2018, 12:19:10 AM
Contrary to what the media would have us believe, violent crime has been trending significantly downward for the last quarter century.  We are on the right track.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/30/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/30/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/)

Yet gun related deaths continue to increase at 6% per year.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 18, 2018, 01:11:54 AM
The two studies ate measuring different things, so the results will be different.

Your link is tracking crime.

My link is tracking gun related incidents, injury and deaths.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rimu05 on February 18, 2018, 07:09:21 PM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

If you really want to slander the three men who gave their lives trying to shield the students from bullets and how toxic their masculinity was, jump right ahead.

I think Kris was referring to "toxic masculinity" as a personality feature, not that masculinity, in general, is toxic.

I don't think any reasonable person would file protecting others from violent attack as toxic, masculine or otherwise.

I don't think any reasonable person would file taking a gun and shooting unarmed children as masculine.

All mass shooters are men.

Responding that not all men are mass shooters (a true statement) is just stating that it's not OK to talk about the problem of male mass shooters. Which is to say that we can't talk about the problem of mass shooters. That's pretty unhelpful, in my opinion.

If you are a man and you're not a mass shooter, relax. We're not talking about you.

You purposely lead off with a false statement, what do you hope to accomplish?  Most, but not ALL mass shooters are male.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/amp/wife-san-bernardino-shooting-joins-small-list-women-mass-killers-n473536 (https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/amp/wife-san-bernardino-shooting-joins-small-list-women-mass-killers-n473536)

If you want to talk about black male gang members, Muslim terrorists, go ahead as well.  Just don't start with 'all Terrorists are Muslim' bullshit.

You're welcome to discuss the fact that most are men.  Skip the one liners that say nothing.  If you have something meaningful to say then say it.  Here are my thoughts:

Our culture expects males to be tough.  As a general example, if a female cries in school for whatever reason, others will support and comfort her.  If a male cries, he is more likely to be chastised, bullied or beat up.  I know females can be nasty in other ways too, but let's agree that there is a difference, and emotional support is generally less available to males.  I think if we treated females the same way maybe they would wind up as mass shooters as well. 

Male teens are also 4x more likely than females to commit suicide.  No one seems to care about this stat, but it seems quite relevant if you want to discuss male vs female mass shooters.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6630a6.htm (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6630a6.htm)

Once again it could be our culture doesn't give males enough emotional support.  It can suck to be a teenager, and it seems males feel they are on their own.  I think lack of emotional support for young males during a critical time of mental development contributes to the higher suicide rates among males.  A few of these may go on to become mass shooters instead.

I think this begins to explain a possible reason most mass shooters are male.  It has nothing to do with masculinity, it's more about being a outcast with no emotional support.  We can start addressing this by changing the culture; improving support and removing unreasonable expectations for young males.  Fix the issue that's disproportionately causing males to commit suicide and the mass shootings will also decline.

What are your thoughts on the fact that most shooters are male?

I agree with the emotional support and removing unreasonable expectations for young males aspect but I also want to point out there are a lot of crimes committed by males, that go beyond this. Take child molesters for example. A huge portion are male and while many also come from backgrounds where they were abused, there are many who really don't.

I am just hoping if there is a God, he's keen on burning us all.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 18, 2018, 10:01:29 PM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

If you really want to slander the three men who gave their lives trying to shield the students from bullets and how toxic their masculinity was, jump right ahead.

I think Kris was referring to "toxic masculinity" as a personality feature, not that masculinity, in general, is toxic.

I don't think any reasonable person would file protecting others from violent attack as toxic, masculine or otherwise.

I don't think any reasonable person would file taking a gun and shooting unarmed children as masculine.

All mass shooters are men.

Responding that not all men are mass shooters (a true statement) is just stating that it's not OK to talk about the problem of male mass shooters. Which is to say that we can't talk about the problem of mass shooters. That's pretty unhelpful, in my opinion.

If you are a man and you're not a mass shooter, relax. We're not talking about you.

So borderline personality disorder is feminine?  I don't think that's how most people use masculine and feminine.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cressida on February 19, 2018, 12:14:33 AM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

If you really want to slander the three men who gave their lives trying to shield the students from bullets and how toxic their masculinity was, jump right ahead.

I think Kris was referring to "toxic masculinity" as a personality feature, not that masculinity, in general, is toxic.

I don't think any reasonable person would file protecting others from violent attack as toxic, masculine or otherwise.

I don't think any reasonable person would file taking a gun and shooting unarmed children as masculine.

All mass shooters are men.

Responding that not all men are mass shooters (a true statement) is just stating that it's not OK to talk about the problem of male mass shooters. Which is to say that we can't talk about the problem of mass shooters. That's pretty unhelpful, in my opinion.

If you are a man and you're not a mass shooter, relax. We're not talking about you.

So borderline personality disorder is feminine?  I don't think that's how most people use masculine and feminine.

I gather you think that the fact that more women than men are diagnosed with a completely unrelated psychological disorder*, one that doesn't usually lead to violence, is somehow relevant here. I disagree.


*one that is arguably overdiagnosed in general
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bugbaby on February 19, 2018, 01:48:14 AM


So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

If you really want to slander the three men who gave their lives trying to shield the students from bullets and how toxic their masculinity was, jump right ahead.

I think Kris was referring to "toxic masculinity" as a personality feature, not that masculinity, in general, is toxic.

I don't think any reasonable person would file protecting others from violent attack as toxic, masculine or otherwise.

I don't think any reasonable person would file taking a gun and shooting unarmed children as masculine.

All mass shooters are men.

Responding that not all men are mass shooters (a true statement) is just stating that it's not OK to talk about the problem of male mass shooters. Which is to say that we can't talk about the problem of mass shooters. That's pretty unhelpful, in my opinion.

If you are a man and you're not a mass shooter, relax. We're not talking about you.

You purposely lead off with a false statement, what do you hope to accomplish?  Most, but not ALL mass shooters are male.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/amp/wife-san-bernardino-shooting-joins-small-list-women-mass-killers-n473536 (https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/amp/wife-san-bernardino-shooting-joins-small-list-women-mass-killers-n473536)

If you want to talk about black male gang members, Muslim terrorists, go ahead as well.  Just don't start with 'all Terrorists are Muslim' bullshit.

You're welcome to discuss the fact that most are men.  Skip the one liners that say nothing.  If you have something meaningful to say then say it.  Here are my thoughts:

Our culture expects males to be tough.  As a general example, if a female cries in school for whatever reason, others will support and comfort her.  If a male cries, he is more likely to be chastised, bullied or beat up.  I know females can be nasty in other ways too, but let's agree that there is a difference, and emotional support is generally less available to males.  I think if we treated females the same way maybe they would wind up as mass shooters as well. 

Male teens are also 4x more likely than females to commit suicide.  No one seems to care about this stat, but it seems quite relevant if you want to discuss male vs female mass shooters.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6630a6.htm (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6630a6.htm)

Once again it could be our culture doesn't give males enough emotional support.  It can suck to be a teenager, and it seems males feel they are on their own.  I think lack of emotional support for young males during a critical time of mental development contributes to the higher suicide rates among males.  A few of these may go on to become mass shooters instead.

I think this begins to explain a possible reason most mass shooters are male.  It has nothing to do with masculinity, it's more about being a outcast with no emotional support.  We can start addressing this by changing the culture; improving support and removing unreasonable expectations for young males.  Fix the issue that's disproportionately causing males to commit suicide and the mass shootings will also decline.

What are your thoughts on the fact that most shooters are male?

Ha! This is funny.

You're quibbling with the statement 'all mass shooters are male' rather than the fact, 'almost all mass shooters are male' ...

Then you follow up with the claims that mass shooters are mostly male because they lack emotional support and that females would be just as violent as males are if they were treated as men are treated?

Nothing to do with innate nature i.e, hello tesstosterone, Y chromosome...


Gender issues asides, how about dealing with the obvious that armed violent criminals tend to commit violent crimes? And address the ideologies and policies that allow this to happen.

 hint: Disarming all law abiding citizens (a la Mexico) is not the way, despite the widespread emotional pleas.

Taking out the criminals however,  might help. (For instance in Chicago almost all gun murders are by previously convicted felons.)

Sent from my KIW-L24 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on February 19, 2018, 08:22:32 AM
I get the feeling you aren't open to discussion, your remarks are dismissive without analysis.

What do you think about the disparity in suicide rates?  I don't understand why that is being ignored.  Do you think it's relevant?

Cressida has a history of not being open to discussion of these types of things. Numerous articles discuss the EXACT thing you brought up - that young males have a set of cultural expectations that, if they can't match, might lead them to commit these acts of violence.

Cressida isn't wrong that there are cultural expectations of women too, but for the sake of a discussion on school shootings, the expectations on them don't set of a mental chain of events that might culminate in something like this. 

I suspect that any effort to point on that men need some societal attention as well seems to infuriate the likes of cressida because it might distract from, and counter the narrative of, Nth wave feminism's goals.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RetiredAt63 on February 19, 2018, 10:02:54 AM
Suicide is a bit OT, but  . . . . My understanding about suicide rates is that men are more likely to use guns (and hanging!) and women are more likely to use pills, which means more men are successful and more women are unsuccessful.  What would be more useful in suicide discussions is the rate of attempted suicides, and how survivors look back on their suicide attempts.  It is hard to be relieved you didn't commit suicide after all since your life has improved, if you were successful.

This is an interesting article
http://statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-624-x/2012001/article/11696-eng.htm (http://statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-624-x/2012001/article/11696-eng.htm)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cressida on February 19, 2018, 03:25:01 PM
I suspect that any effort to point on that men need some societal attention as well seems to infuriate the likes of cressida because it might distract from, and counter the narrative of, Nth wave feminism's goals.

This is where you guys are going wrong in this conversation. Your statement implies that women get "societal attention" and men don't. That's vague and unsupported.

And it's 2nd wave. 2nd wavers are the ones who *don't* think men are predisposed to be violent, by the way.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 19, 2018, 05:44:04 PM
...
...
...
Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States?  To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

Here ya go:

Quote
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY)

Quote
"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
- Rosie O'Donnell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnjxmitU9JI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnjxmitU9JI)

Quote
There is little sense in gun registration.  What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . .  Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . .  Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.
- Communitarian Network's "Case for Domestic Disarmament" signed by San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke
https://www2.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_disarm.html (https://www2.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_disarm.html)

Quote
The Brady Bill is the minimum step that Congress should take to control handguns.  We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.
-William L. Clay

Quote
"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"
-John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

Quote
Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.
-Joe Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

Quote
“We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.”
-ACLU #47


BUT SAVING THE BEST FOR LAST
Quote
It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

-H.R.4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/text (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/text)
...  FYI that means the below posted gun would be illegal:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcpZySPI9FtQkldpIsUMPVTU8Z4feVripGUNU5RhyVAHGDeSorxA)

Along with basically every gun I own.

You wonder why one side of the table considers the other disingenuous...


Quote
(ii) All AR types, including the following:
“(I) AR–10.
“(II) AR–15.
“(III) Armalite M15 22LR Carbine.
“(IV) Armalite M15–T.
“(V) Barrett REC7.
“(VI) Beretta AR–70.
“(VII) Bushmaster ACR.
“(VIII) Bushmaster Carbon 15.
“(IX) Bushmaster MOE series.
“(X) Bushmaster XM15.
“(XI) Colt Match Target Rifles.

“(XII) DoubleStar AR rifles.
“(XIII) DPMS Tactical Rifles.
“(XIV) Heckler & Koch MR556.
“(XV) Olympic Arms.
“(XVI) Remington R–15 rifles.
“(XVII) Rock River Arms LAR–15.
“(XVIII) Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles.
“(XIX) Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles.
“(XX) Stag Arms AR rifles.
“(XXI) Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles.


And here are some really REALLY dumb quotes just for fun:
(But they still display why, rather succinctly, many gun owners are unwilling to come to the table)

Quote
Some of these bullets, as you saw, have an incendiary device on the tip of it, which is a heat seeking device. So, you don’t shoot deer with a bullet that size. If you do you could cook it at the same time.
-Patrician Eddington
https://youtu.be/BRQqieimwLQ (https://youtu.be/BRQqieimwLQ)

Quote
Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.
-Joe Biden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOpj-BEPnSg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOpj-BEPnSg)

Quote
This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.”
–Kevin de Leon
https://youtu.be/RAeI7rTjJMQ (https://youtu.be/RAeI7rTjJMQ)

Quote
We lose 93 million Americans a day to gun violence.
-Terry McAuliffe

Quote
We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.
– Dianne Feinstein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOSrc_U_Vtw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOSrc_U_Vtw)

Quote
…it is easier for a 12- or 13-year-old to purchase a gun, and cheaper, than it is for them to get a book.
– Barack Obama
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seHXY5a9ezI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seHXY5a9ezI)[/size]
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 19, 2018, 07:00:32 PM
I'll respond directly to the quotes you've brought forth as 'evidence' that politicians are working hard to ban all guns.

Quote
Quote
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY)

This doesn't say what your out of context quote implies.  She's specifically talking about the assault weapons that could not be covered by her bill, she's not trying to take all of your guns.



Quote
Quote
Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.
-Joe Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

So, the actual quote was "The House better understand the power of an idea whose time has come" -
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/18/us/senate-approves-ban-on-manufacture-of-military-style-weapons.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/18/us/senate-approves-ban-on-manufacture-of-military-style-weapons.html).  You'll notice that the one you posted is not only taken out of context here (again, he was referring to assault weapons), but you also changed it to something he didn't say.



Quote
Quote
There is little sense in gun registration.  What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . .  Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . .  Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.
- Communitarian Network's "Case for Domestic Disarmament" signed by San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke
https://www2.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_disarm.html (https://www2.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_disarm.html)

Quote
The Brady Bill is the minimum step that Congress should take to control handguns.  We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.
-William L. Clay

Quote
“We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.”
-ACLU #47

Discusses limiting gun ownership of handguns.  Doesn't suggest banning all guns.  I haven't verified these quotes yet, but given the falsehoods previously passed off as truth it would probably be good if someone does.



Quote
It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

-H.R.4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015

Limited controls for specific weapons.  No attempt to ban all guns.




Weak sauce.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on February 19, 2018, 07:18:29 PM
Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.”  Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 19, 2018, 07:45:14 PM
Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.”  Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”

Bingo!

Notice he didn't address the bill that is currently sitting on the House Floor (or is it stalled in sub-committee... Not sure since it hasn't been touched).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: middo on February 19, 2018, 10:35:21 PM
Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.”  Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”

As a non US citizen, I always find these discussions amusing in a dark kind of way.  GuitarStv seems to be arguing for gun laws basically the same as those in Australia.  As an Australian, I own a gun.  I cannot own a semi-automatic.  I do not feel a deep seated need for a semi-automatic.  I see no reason for needing a semi-automatic weapon on my farm.  When I shoot a fox, I aim carefully and hit it on the first shot.  When I kill a goat, I aim carefully and kill it with one shot.

As for the bike analogy, I rather see then analogy as "Of course you can own a bicycle, but you can't claim that motorcycle as a bicycle."

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on February 20, 2018, 02:11:35 AM
Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.”  Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”

As a non US citizen, I always find these discussions amusing in a dark kind of way.  GuitarStv seems to be arguing for gun laws basically the same as those in Australia.  As an Australian, I own a gun.  I cannot own a semi-automatic.  I do not feel a deep seated need for a semi-automatic.  I see no reason for needing a semi-automatic weapon on my farm.  When I shoot a fox, I aim carefully and hit it on the first shot.  When I kill a goat, I aim carefully and kill it with one shot.

As for the bike analogy, I rather see then analogy as "Of course you can own a bicycle, but you can't claim that motorcycle as a bicycle."

Well said.

GuitarStv seems to be doing a good job of backing up his assertions.

His detractors... not so much.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 20, 2018, 08:26:06 AM
Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.”  Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”

Yes Chris, I'm still playing that game of pointing out lies and misrepresentations used to support hyperbole.  None of the quotes presented suggested a ban on all semi-automatic rifles, so I see that you are intent on keeping the game alive and well.

I get that you don't want restriction of any gun whatsoever.  That's fine.  If you want to say 'Hey, they're coming for my assault rifle' that's a perfectly legit complaint.  If you want to say hey, some other people have come up with some draft legislation that has never made it to a reading that says it might be a good idea to restrict handguns for ownership other than for target practice, collection, federal/state/local military/law enforcement agencies, and professional security services - that's a perfectly legit complaint.

When you claim that the government is trying to take away all your guns because some people have suggested limiting some classes of firearm at separate occasions over the past 30 years you start to look kinda silly.  Even up here in gun-grabbin' Canada nobody has come for our guns.  Hell, I had no problem getting a semi-automatic hunting rifle at the age of 12.







Quote
Some of these bullets, as you saw, have an incendiary device on the tip of it, which is a heat seeking device. So, you don’t shoot deer with a bullet that size. If you do you could cook it at the same time.
-Patrician Eddington
https://youtu.be/BRQqieimwLQ (https://youtu.be/BRQqieimwLQ)

Quote
Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.
-Joe Biden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOpj-BEPnSg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOpj-BEPnSg)

Quote
This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.”
–Kevin de Leon
https://youtu.be/RAeI7rTjJMQ (https://youtu.be/RAeI7rTjJMQ)

Quote
We lose 93 million Americans a day to gun violence.
-Terry McAuliffe

Quote
We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.
– Dianne Feinstein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOSrc_U_Vtw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOSrc_U_Vtw)

Quote
…it is easier for a 12- or 13-year-old to purchase a gun, and cheaper, than it is for them to get a book.
– Barack Obama
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seHXY5a9ezI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seHXY5a9ezI)[/size]

These are some stupid things that people have said.  It hurts their argument, and I certainly wish that they hadn't said them.  When you use hyperbole and lies to try to prove a point, you weaken your argument.  But it's kinda ironic that you couple a bunch of snicker worthy comments like this with lies and hyperbole of your own that puts you in the same category.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 20, 2018, 08:53:12 AM
8 proposals with >60% public support.

Congress won't enact a single one.

Can you cite the source of this data, DaS?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html

There are more than 8 with that amount of support (in fact, 20 measures polled received 59% or more public support) but those 8 were deemed to be likely the most effective by experts.

Just bumping this to reiterate, effective measures are available, possible, constitutional, overwhelmingly popular.  They aren't happening because your congress is bought and paid for.  Stop voting for incumbents.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 20, 2018, 08:56:38 AM
Just bumping this to reiterate, effective measures are available, possible, constitutional, overwhelmingly popular.  They aren't happening because your congress is bought and paid for.  Stop voting for incumbents.

@TheOldestYoungMan, Is there a thread or could you start a thread on term limits for congress.

That is something I am particularly interested in discussing (and gauging this forum's opinion on).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 20, 2018, 10:17:16 AM
8 proposals with >60% public support.

Congress won't enact a single one.

Can you cite the source of this data, DaS?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html

There are more than 8 with that amount of support (in fact, 20 measures polled received 59% or more public support) but those 8 were deemed to be likely the most effective by experts.

Just bumping this to reiterate, effective measures are available, possible, constitutional, overwhelmingly popular.  They aren't happening because your congress is bought and paid for.  Stop voting for incumbents.

And also the NRA is extremely well-organized with propaganda and has a consistent message - think of all the fear they spew that Democrats want to take away your guns.  They have NRATV set up - a TV network dedicated solely to push more gun ownership in this country.

Gun control advocates are typically left chasing - ban bump stocks, ban assault rifles, ban the gun show loophole, more background checks - and are thus left with an inconsistent message that fades away compared to the NRA propaganda machine.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on February 20, 2018, 10:30:58 AM
When you claim that the government is trying to take away all your guns because some people have suggested limiting some classes of firearm at separate occasions over the past 30 years you start to look kinda silly.  Even up here in gun-grabbin' Canada nobody has come for our guns.  Hell, I had no problem getting a semi-automatic hunting rifle at the age of 12.

Except that again, the “some classes of firearm” they are looking to “limit” are by far the most popular and widely owned. So yes, if I’m a gun owner who only owns an AR-15 and a “high capacity” semi automatic pistol, which is probably the most common combination out there, then yes, plenty of people in government have suggested “taking all of my guns”.  The “you can still get a hunting rifle” is immaterial and irrelevant.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 20, 2018, 10:39:40 AM
Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.”  Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”

Yes Chris, I'm still playing that game of pointing out lies and misrepresentations used to support hyperbole.  None of the quotes presented suggested a ban on all semi-automatic rifles, so I see that you are intent on keeping the game alive and well.

I get that you don't want restriction of any gun whatsoever.  That's fine.  If you want to say 'Hey, they're coming for my assault rifle' that's a perfectly legit complaint.  If you want to say hey, some other people have come up with some draft legislation that has never made it to a reading that says it might be a good idea to restrict handguns for ownership other than for target practice, collection, federal/state/local military/law enforcement agencies, and professional security services - that's a perfectly legit complaint.

When you claim that the government is trying to take away all your guns because some people have suggested limiting some classes of firearm at separate occasions over the past 30 years you start to look kinda silly.  Even up here in gun-grabbin' Canada nobody has come for our guns.  Hell, I had no problem getting a semi-automatic hunting rifle at the age of 12.



Politicians who claim to want to ban "assault rifles" or "assault weapons" based on cosmetics while leaving functionally equivalent weapons legal can only be (1) trying to get the camels  nose under the tent to regulate the functional equivalents later, (2) hoping their supporters are too ignorant to know how the made up terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapons" are defined, or (3) so ignorant themselves that they don't know what they are advocating for. 

I can understand why people assume that politicians pushing gun control really fall under option number (1) and not options number (2) or (3).  Maybe that's giving them too much credit, but it doesn't seem implausible that there are gun control advocates who are not trying to dupe their supporters and who are not complete morons. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 20, 2018, 11:20:37 AM
When you claim that the government is trying to take away all your guns because some people have suggested limiting some classes of firearm at separate occasions over the past 30 years you start to look kinda silly.  Even up here in gun-grabbin' Canada nobody has come for our guns.  Hell, I had no problem getting a semi-automatic hunting rifle at the age of 12.

Except that again, the “some classes of firearm” they are looking to “limit” are by far the most popular and widely owned. So yes, if I’m a gun owner who only owns an AR-15 and a “high capacity” semi automatic pistol, which is probably the most common combination out there, then yes, plenty of people in government have suggested “taking all of my guns”.  The “you can still get a hunting rifle” is immaterial and irrelevant.

If I owned a fully automatic machine gun and a sawed off shotgun in the '30s I'd be pretty upset about the government wanting to impose restrictions on those weapons too.  That's a perfectly reasonable thing to complain about, and debate.  It would be silly of me to try to claim that the government is banning all guns though . . . since it's obviously not true.

I get that you're upset that someone wants to take away your favorite toys.  Continuing to whine about the unfairness of gun regulation because it personally impacts you doesn't make your argument any more true than it was originally though.


Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.”  Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”

Yes Chris, I'm still playing that game of pointing out lies and misrepresentations used to support hyperbole.  None of the quotes presented suggested a ban on all semi-automatic rifles, so I see that you are intent on keeping the game alive and well.

I get that you don't want restriction of any gun whatsoever.  That's fine.  If you want to say 'Hey, they're coming for my assault rifle' that's a perfectly legit complaint.  If you want to say hey, some other people have come up with some draft legislation that has never made it to a reading that says it might be a good idea to restrict handguns for ownership other than for target practice, collection, federal/state/local military/law enforcement agencies, and professional security services - that's a perfectly legit complaint.

When you claim that the government is trying to take away all your guns because some people have suggested limiting some classes of firearm at separate occasions over the past 30 years you start to look kinda silly.  Even up here in gun-grabbin' Canada nobody has come for our guns.  Hell, I had no problem getting a semi-automatic hunting rifle at the age of 12.



Politicians who claim to want to ban "assault rifles" or "assault weapons" based on cosmetics while leaving functionally equivalent weapons legal can only be (1) trying to get the camels  nose under the tent to regulate the functional equivalents later, (2) hoping their supporters are too ignorant to know how the made up terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapons" are defined, or (3) so ignorant themselves that they don't know what they are advocating for. 

I can understand why people assume that politicians pushing gun control really fall under option number (1) and not options number (2) or (3).  Maybe that's giving them too much credit, but it doesn't seem implausible that there are gun control advocates who are not trying to dupe their supporters and who are not complete morons. 


I think it's already been mentioned in this thread (whoops, it was the other gun thread), but the banning 'based on cosmetics' argument is not entirely true, is it?

The pistol grip is a scary cosmetic feature.  Unfortunately, the ruger 223 would have been just as deadly in this situation despite its wooden stock and lack of a pistol grip.
There is a reason almost every military rifle is made with a pistol grip.  It is an ergonomically superior position and it gives greater control of the weapon.  Better control of the weapon in an easier to hold position = more enemy soldiers shot.  The same goes for civilians.  It is very likely that the Ruger Ranch .223 would not have been "just as deadly" in this situation.  Still deadly, yes, just not "as deadly".  Perhaps enacting laws that might result in less dead people from a mass shooting is a good place to start. 

Having said that, I agree with you that banning pistol grips wont stop mass shootings.  Nor will restrictions on magazine capacity.  Nothing will completely stop mass shootings.  Just like banning murder doesn't stop murders from happening.  That's probably not a great argument for allowing murder though.


I'm not going to argue that every part of the assault weapons ban makes perfect sense (some things certainly don't), but it is disingenuous to argue that all aspects of it are purely cosmetic.  Stuff like the pistol grip (aids in aiming), a collapsible stock (easier to conceal weapon), a flash supressor (makes it harder to see where someone is firing from), these are certainly not cosmetic features.



So, maybe
4) Some (non-ignorant) people believe that there might be societal benefit from changing the availability of particular weapons.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 20, 2018, 01:03:30 PM
Why haven't the owners of gun stores set up their own, non government controlled, database/registry of listed and de-listed buyers?

You can refuse to sell to anyone.  You can even discriminate as long as you don't do so against protected classes.  So get together, in the interest of protecting your business, and hire people to populate the database with violent felons and so forth.  I bet the uncounted tens of thousands of homeland employees would be more than happy to keep it updated on their lunch break.

You don't even have to track who you sell to, just run the name against a list of known violent-as-fuck/batshit-crazy folks prior to purchase.

Refuse to sell to folks without a high school diploma or GED.  Require a good report card/recommendation from coach/scout leader/youth group minister/ROTC/beta club/NHS etc. to sell to minors.  Make it so people can update it with names when a friend says something violent on social media.  "I'm gonna kill em all" is funny rhetoric and everything in certain context, but freedom of speech only goes so far and I'm sort of OK with every gun dealer in the lower 48 refusing to sell to me because I threatened, publicly, a violent act.

However the fuck you want to do it.

Why can't the leadership of our country stand up and say:  Fix this.

Or better yet:  You haven't fixed this already, we're fixing it for you.

There is nothing, nothing on the list of reasonable, popular measures, that the makers/sellers of guns couldn't do right now, on their own, with full control over how it is implemented and who controls the data.

The reason they haven't?  Greed.

It shouldn't be easier to buy guns than it is to buy spray paint.

"I don't have to" isn't a good enough reason anymore.  Fucking fix it.  And if you continue to refuse, fuckin-a-right we're taking your guns away.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on February 20, 2018, 01:16:30 PM
???  Gun stores run every purchaser through an instant background check by law already.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 20, 2018, 02:09:52 PM
And have a minimum age of 18 years.
21 years for anything with a pistol grip.

It shouldn't be easier to buy guns than it is to buy spray paint.

This is a huge straw man.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 20, 2018, 02:34:14 PM
And have a minimum age of 18 years.
21 years for anything with a pistol grip.

Must be 21 and wait 3 days for a pistol in Florida.

Only need to be 18 and almost no wait for an AR-15.

Give me a break.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 20, 2018, 02:48:50 PM
???  Gun stores run every purchaser through an instant background check by law already.

And this is already proven to be insufficient.  It needs to stop being a box they check, a compliance step, and start being something they take seriously, and that they insist be thorough.  Someone with known issues legally bought a gun and murdered a bunch of kids.  That shouldn't have been possible, and gun stores don't need a new law to prevent it from happening again, they just have to decide they are going to do whatever it takes to prevent it from happening again.

And have a minimum age of 18 years.
21 years for anything with a pistol grip.

It shouldn't be easier to buy guns than it is to buy spray paint.

This is a huge straw man.

So, it's been twenty years, but I don't think the laws are any different, but at age 16 a friend and I went to the store together, I was his ride.  He was picking up a gun he'd bought his dad for Christmas, I was getting spray paint for a school project.

Which one of us do you suppose left the store with what we wanted?

The store, by policy, did not sell spray paint to minors.  I would need a note on school letterhead or my parents would have to buy the paint.

The store, by law, could sell long guns to 16 and older.  And had no policy against it.  He didn't even have an ID.

So I don't know where the straw man is.  But whatever.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 20, 2018, 02:54:02 PM
https://www.local10.com/news/parkland-school-shooting/florida-house-votes-down-motion-to-take-up-weapons-ban-with-douglas-students-present

Florida House votes down motion to take up weapons ban with Douglas students present

A nearly party line vote (71-36) on the motion.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 20, 2018, 03:12:36 PM
Yeah, even though I fully support an individual right to bear arms I'm really getting sick of the argument that we can't do anything because the evil government will take all our guns.  I'm no longer sympathetic to it at all, in fact I  find it cowardly.  Maybe there are some people who do want to ban all or most guns and maybe that number is growing because our broken government refuses to come up with any better solutions.  So guess what, if the only solution being offered is to ban all guns then fine, I'll support it and those who think it's a good idea.  If anyone doesn't like that then I suggest they start enacting some actual workable solutions that don't involve banning all or most guns so that I can support those solutions instead.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 20, 2018, 03:19:02 PM
???  Gun stores run every purchaser through an instant background check by law already.

And this is already proven to be insufficient.  It needs to stop being a box they check, a compliance step, and start being something they take seriously, and that they insist be thorough.  Someone with known issues legally bought a gun and murdered a bunch of kids.  That shouldn't have been possible, and gun stores don't need a new law to prevent it from happening again, they just have to decide they are going to do whatever it takes to prevent it from happening again.

And have a minimum age of 18 years.
21 years for anything with a pistol grip.

It shouldn't be easier to buy guns than it is to buy spray paint.

This is a huge straw man.

So, it's been twenty years, but I don't think the laws are any different, but at age 16 a friend and I went to the store together, I was his ride.  He was picking up a gun he'd bought his dad for Christmas, I was getting spray paint for a school project.

Which one of us do you suppose left the store with what we wanted?

The store, by policy, did not sell spray paint to minors.  I would need a note on school letterhead or my parents would have to buy the paint.

The store, by law, could sell long guns to 16 and older.  And had no policy against it.  He didn't even have an ID.

So I don't know where the straw man is.  But whatever.

Quote
Sec. 46.06.  UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OF CERTAIN WEAPONS.  (a)  A person commits an offense if the person:

(1)  sells, rents, leases, loans, or gives a handgun to any person knowing that the person to whom the handgun is to be delivered intends to use it unlawfully or in the commission of an unlawful act;

(2)  intentionally or knowingly sells, rents, leases, or gives or offers to sell, rent, lease, or give to any child younger than 18 years of age any firearm, club, or location-restricted knife;
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm)

The strawman is RIGHT THERE.

I appreciate everyone's opinion on things to which they are knowledgeable, but spouting off incorrect things like "its easier to buy a gun than spray paint" is useless for the conversation.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 20, 2018, 03:26:19 PM
Yeah, even though I fully support an individual right to bear arms I'm really getting sick of the argument that we can't do anything because the evil government will take all our guns.  I'm no longer sympathetic to it at all, in fact I  find it cowardly.  Maybe there are some people who do want to ban all or most guns and maybe that number is growing because our broken government refuses to come up with any better solutions.  So guess what, if the only solution being offered is to ban all guns then fine, I'll support it and those who think it's a good idea.  If anyone doesn't like that then I suggest they start enacting some actual workable solutions that don't involve banning all or most guns so that I can support those solutions instead.

If you are going to blame anybody, blame both sides.

Most people don't know that this happened in 2015.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/03/senate-democrats-to-force-gun-control-votes-in-the-wake-of-the-san-bernardino-shooting/?utm_term=.1835471587ff (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/03/senate-democrats-to-force-gun-control-votes-in-the-wake-of-the-san-bernardino-shooting/?utm_term=.1835471587ff)

Quote
To counter Feinstein’s amendment, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) proposed a measure that would give the [US] attorney general the power to impose a 72-hour delay for individuals on the terror watch list seeking to purchase a gun and it could become a permanent ban if a judge determines there is probable cause during that time window.

Tldr:  GOP and Dems push for gun control measures.  Dems block the GOP measure out of spite and because "it didn't go far enough". 

If they really cared and weren't interested in partisan politics, they would have happily taken the offer.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 20, 2018, 03:30:09 PM
I don't believe escalation is the answer. Where does it end? Once all students are armed with guns?

Did the alarm bells not sound that society needs to change when people believed it necessary to have security guards at schools?
I think I can answer a couple of these concerns:
1) I don't understand what you mean by "I don't believe escalation is the answer."  Do you mean to say that if teachers are armed, we'll see more gun violence in schools?  I have a hard time believing that armed teachers will cause *more* school shootings.  We already trust teachers every day.  If a teacher is going to kill a bunch of students, they have easy access.  On contrary, I think that having a policy of allowing teachers to take extra training and carry concealed in schools is a good one.  Why?  Because even if no teachers opt to do so, it changes the school from a defenseless target to one that is far riskier for a potential shooter.  Those who choose to commit these horrific crimes are often unstable, but not stupid.  They don't target gun stores or police departments.

2) I agree that it's a bit disturbing that we feel the need to increase security at schools!  But rather than rush to enact broad gun regulations which have little chance of making an impact, let's start looking at what has changed in our culture.  After all, civilian semiautomatic rifles have been in common possession for the better part of a century. 

Quote
I don't want my kids' teachers to have guns in school. I don't want there to be cops in school. I'm positive both only make this problem worse. I am baffled why anyone thinks more guns is a solution to the wrong people having and using guns. Crossfire, anyone? And really, how are police supposed to know who to take down if everyone is pulling a gun in school?
I have a hard time understanding this one.  Off the top of my head, every one of these mass murders has been committed by a single person, and never by a teacher.  Crossfire?  I think if someone is coming into your classroom with the intent of killing as many as people as possible, a crossfire is probably the least of your concerns.  Mass shootings are not an extended gun battle.  They typically go until the police (or someone else with a gun) shows up, at which point either 1) the shooter gives themselves up, 2) the shooter gets killed, or 3) the shooter kills himself.

Even with the potential of a crossfire, how is this worse then the alternative of a bunch of people getting killed?
Quote
Agreed criminals do not care. But it's not just criminals killing people with guns. Avoidable accidents also contribute to the death toll.
Contribute, yes.  But not a whole lot.  About 600 deaths per year, or 1/20th as many as murders.
Quote
The way I see it is escalation leads to more incidents and more deaths. So what's the alternative? Nation wide mass removal of guns, without infrifging your rights.

1. Nation wide gun registry. Any gun not registered is confiscated and destroyed.
Various states (most recently New York) have a history of using such a registry to confiscate guns from people without due process.
Quote
2. Firearms license. Similar to drivers license. If you fire or are in possession of a gun and do not have a license it is confiscated and destroyed.
3. Higher grade licenses required for semi automatic weapons, assult rifles (pretty much any gun that isn't built for recreational hunting)
4. Secure storage requirements. You can argue the details but at the minimum guns and ammo separately secured when owner not at home, or transported in public.
5. The registered gun owner is liable for the damage caused by their guns. We can argue the extent. This is to ensure all transactions go through the registry, security requirements are followed, and thefys are reported.
6. Mandatory background checks, with right of appeal, and maxum decision time.
This would certainly deter gun ownership among law-abiding citizens, but would not affect criminals.  Remember, the Sandy Hook shooter stole his firearms after murdering their owner.  In Las Vegas, the shooter would have passed any training/examination/licensing requirements.
Quote
7. Generous buy back of guns purchased prior to change in laws coming into effect. All buy back guns are destroyed.
That's been tried many times.  It has never proven effective.
Quote
8. Statistical gathering of all gun related incidents focused on improving background check markers and training requirements.
Can you expand on what sorts of statistics would be gathered, and what requirements would be affected?
Quote
9. Mass education on responsible gun ownership.
Hey, I have no problem with this.  Perhaps we'd then get legislators who could tell a butt stock from a barrel shroud, and a semiautomatic rifle from a machine gun.
Quote
The kicker is this has to be nation wide. A single state will be ineffective as criminals will simply source from another state.

As a gun owner, what do you get out of it?
1. No one taking your guns.
2. Knowledge that all other owners are moving towards greater responsibility.
3. Knowledge that police can effectively remove guns from the criminal population.
1) Not quite.  It actually increases the fear, because it gives more power to the government (at whatever level) to confiscate your guns.
2) I think you're conflating "moving toward greater responsibility" with "complying with laws because they're law-abiding people."  I don't think I know any gun owners who rate others' responsibility (or lack thereof) as a significant concern.  And gun owners aren't shy about telling someone they're being dangerous.
3) I don't see anything here that would affect criminals beyond what is already possible through existing gun laws.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 20, 2018, 03:37:59 PM
Yeah, even though I fully support an individual right to bear arms I'm really getting sick of the argument that we can't do anything because the evil government will take all our guns.  I'm no longer sympathetic to it at all, in fact I  find it cowardly.  Maybe there are some people who do want to ban all or most guns and maybe that number is growing because our broken government refuses to come up with any better solutions.  So guess what, if the only solution being offered is to ban all guns then fine, I'll support it and those who think it's a good idea.  If anyone doesn't like that then I suggest they start enacting some actual workable solutions that don't involve banning all or most guns so that I can support those solutions instead.

If you are going to blame anybody, blame both sides.

Most people don't know that this happened in 2015.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/03/senate-democrats-to-force-gun-control-votes-in-the-wake-of-the-san-bernardino-shooting/?utm_term=.1835471587ff (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/03/senate-democrats-to-force-gun-control-votes-in-the-wake-of-the-san-bernardino-shooting/?utm_term=.1835471587ff)

Quote
To counter Feinstein’s amendment, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) proposed a measure that would give the [US] attorney general the power to impose a 72-hour delay for individuals on the terror watch list seeking to purchase a gun and it could become a permanent ban if a judge determines there is probable cause during that time window.

Tldr:  GOP and Dems push for gun control measures.  Dems block the GOP measure out of spite and because "it didn't go far enough". 

If they really cared and weren't interested in partisan politics, they would have happily taken the offer.

I don't care what happened in 2015.  It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government.  If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 20, 2018, 03:41:46 PM
I don't care what happened in 2015.  It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government.  If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.
You're assuming that 1) the proposals will work, 2) it will pass constitutional muster, and 3) it won't get them booted out of office.  I like the idea of opening up NICS so that responsible gun owners can make sure they're not selling to a prohibited person.  Making it mandatory wouldn't accomplish anything, though--law-abiding citizens would use it anyway, and criminals would continue to ignore it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 20, 2018, 03:47:16 PM
I don't care what happened in 2015.  It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government.  If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.
You're assuming that 1) the proposals will work, 2) it will pass constitutional muster, and 3) it won't get them booted out of office.  I like the idea of opening up NICS so that responsible gun owners can make sure they're not selling to a prohibited person.  Making it mandatory wouldn't accomplish anything, though--law-abiding citizens would use it anyway, and criminals would continue to ignore it.

It is the responsibility of those currently in control of the government to ensure that concerns 1 and 2 are addressed and I don't care a lick about 3.  Do the right thing, personal consequences be damned.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 20, 2018, 05:52:06 PM
???  Gun stores run every purchaser through an instant background check by law already.

And this is already proven to be insufficient.  It needs to stop being a box they check, a compliance step, and start being something they take seriously, and that they insist be thorough.  Someone with known issues legally bought a gun and murdered a bunch of kids.  That shouldn't have been possible, and gun stores don't need a new law to prevent it from happening again, they just have to decide they are going to do whatever it takes to prevent it from happening again.

And have a minimum age of 18 years.
21 years for anything with a pistol grip.

It shouldn't be easier to buy guns than it is to buy spray paint.

This is a huge straw man.

So, it's been twenty years, but I don't think the laws are any different, but at age 16 a friend and I went to the store together, I was his ride.  He was picking up a gun he'd bought his dad for Christmas, I was getting spray paint for a school project.

Which one of us do you suppose left the store with what we wanted?

The store, by policy, did not sell spray paint to minors.  I would need a note on school letterhead or my parents would have to buy the paint.

The store, by law, could sell long guns to 16 and older.  And had no policy against it.  He didn't even have an ID.

So I don't know where the straw man is.  But whatever.

Quote
Sec. 46.06.  UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OF CERTAIN WEAPONS.  (a)  A person commits an offense if the person:

(1)  sells, rents, leases, loans, or gives a handgun to any person knowing that the person to whom the handgun is to be delivered intends to use it unlawfully or in the commission of an unlawful act;

(2)  intentionally or knowingly sells, rents, leases, or gives or offers to sell, rent, lease, or give to any child younger than 18 years of age any firearm, club, or location-restricted knife;
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm)

The strawman is RIGHT THERE.

I appreciate everyone's opinion on things to which they are knowledgeable, but spouting off incorrect things like "its easier to buy a gun than spray paint" is useless for the conversation.

Umm . . . if you read a bit further on in the link you posted:

Quote
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the transfer was to a minor whose parent or the person having legal custody of the minor had given written permission for the sale or, if the transfer was other than a sale, the parent or person having legal custody had given effective consent.

I suspect that what happened was the guy's mom told the gun store it was cool - which then means there's no barrier to selling (or giving) a minor a gun.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 20, 2018, 07:39:03 PM
Umm . . . if you read a bit further on in the link you posted:

Quote
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the transfer was to a minor whose parent or the person having legal custody of the minor had given written permission for the sale or, if the transfer was other than a sale, the parent or person having legal custody had given effective consent.

I suspect that what happened was the guy's mom told the gun store it was cool - which then means there's no barrier to selling (or giving) a minor a gun.

Still not "easier than spray paint".

Move past the straw man.  Get on to real solutions.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on February 21, 2018, 02:12:43 AM
???  Gun stores run every purchaser through an instant background check by law already.

And this is already proven to be insufficient.  It needs to stop being a box they check, a compliance step, and start being something they take seriously, and that they insist be thorough.  Someone with known issues legally bought a gun and murdered a bunch of kids.  That shouldn't have been possible, and gun stores don't need a new law to prevent it from happening again, they just have to decide they are going to do whatever it takes to prevent it from happening again.

And have a minimum age of 18 years.
21 years for anything with a pistol grip.

It shouldn't be easier to buy guns than it is to buy spray paint.

This is a huge straw man.

So, it's been twenty years, but I don't think the laws are any different, but at age 16 a friend and I went to the store together, I was his ride.  He was picking up a gun he'd bought his dad for Christmas, I was getting spray paint for a school project.

Which one of us do you suppose left the store with what we wanted?

The store, by policy, did not sell spray paint to minors.  I would need a note on school letterhead or my parents would have to buy the paint.

The store, by law, could sell long guns to 16 and older.  And had no policy against it.  He didn't even have an ID.

So I don't know where the straw man is.  But whatever.

Quote
Sec. 46.06.  UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OF CERTAIN WEAPONS.  (a)  A person commits an offense if the person:

(1)  sells, rents, leases, loans, or gives a handgun to any person knowing that the person to whom the handgun is to be delivered intends to use it unlawfully or in the commission of an unlawful act;

(2)  intentionally or knowingly sells, rents, leases, or gives or offers to sell, rent, lease, or give to any child younger than 18 years of age any firearm, club, or location-restricted knife;
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm)

The strawman is RIGHT THERE.

I appreciate everyone's opinion on things to which they are knowledgeable, but spouting off incorrect things like "its easier to buy a gun than spray paint" is useless for the conversation.

Why does someone need to be an expert on firearms to have a valid opinion?
Their opinion is on outcomes, not inputs. They don't need to know every last detail and permutation of a subject to have a valid opinion.
(Think democracy.)

Lots of people have opinions on the safety of airplanes, trains, road vehicles, pharmaceuticals etc., all with out knowing the first thing about those subjects. Do they need to shut up too?

Under your premise, if the powers that be said they were going to build a nuclear plant beside your family's home, you and your neighbours opinion would mean nothing. 

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 21, 2018, 02:36:59 AM
Quote
I think I can answer a couple of these concerns:
1) I don't understand what you mean by "I don't believe escalation is the answer."  Do you mean to say that if teachers are armed, we'll see more gun violence in schools?  I have a hard time believing that armed teachers will cause *more* school shootings.  We already trust teachers every day.  If a teacher is going to kill a bunch of students, they have easy access.  On contrary, I think that having a policy of allowing teachers to take extra training and carry concealed in schools is a good one.  Why?  Because even if no teachers opt to do so, it changes the school from a defenseless target to one that is far riskier for a potential shooter.  Those who choose to commit these horrific crimes are often unstable, but not stupid.  They don't target gun stores or police departments.

Once guns are in classrooms, do you gueniely believe they won’t accidentally end up in the hands of students? Student (5 to 18 year olds) who are not trained in proper handling of deadly weapons, who are in some cases struggle to deal with their emotions, who can still confuse fantasy (tv) with reality, who have no concept of the consequences of their actions.

It’s a fucking recipe for disaster.

Quote
This would certainly deter gun ownership among law-abiding citizens, but would not affect criminals.  Remember, the Sandy Hook shooter stole his firearms after murdering their owner.

Yes it will effect criminals. It enables the instant confiscation of weapons by police that are not legitimate.

It will ensure legitimate weapons are appropriately secured so harder to steal.

Quote
That's been tried many times.  It has never proven effective.

How do you know, your government isn’t allowed to gather the statistics? PS it worked in Australia. Not only did it reduce criminal gun use, it was very effective if continuing the decline of suicides.

Quote
Can you expand on what sorts of statistics would be gathered, and what requirements would be affected?

That’s open for discussion, but I would expect stats to be gathered on all of the following incidents.

All reports to emergency services that involve guns. E.g.
1. Death by gun shot.
2. Injury by gun shot.
3. Shot fired in public.
4. Gun drawn in public
5. Gun drawn in self defence
6. Irresponsible use of a gun (I.e. waving around a gun at peoples faces in a shooting range)

I’d expect the following information to be gathered.
1. The intent of the incident (self defence, intimidation, murder)
2. The gun make/model
3. The legal status of the gun
4. The license level of the gun holder
5. Incident outcome

Quote
1) Not quite.  It actually increases the fear, because it gives more power to the government (at whatever level) to confiscate your guns.
2) I think you're conflating "moving toward greater responsibility" with "complying with laws because they're law-abiding people."  I don't think I know any gun owners who rate others' responsibility (or lack thereof) as a significant concern.  And gun owners aren't shy about telling someone they're being dangerous.
3) I don't see anything here that would affect criminals beyond what is already possible through existing gun laws.

1. Only those who flaunt the rules should fear greater responsibility.

2. We’ve already got an example in this thread of someone’s boss selling a gun to anyone. Responsibility of transfer of ownership is beneficial to responsible gun owners.

3. As mentioned above, instant confiscation of unregistered firearms by police. Reduced chance of the aft of guns. It all helps.

PS I'm glad we agree on the education front.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 21, 2018, 08:20:25 AM
I don't care what happened in 2015.  It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government.  If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.
You're assuming that 1) the proposals will work, 2) it will pass constitutional muster, and 3) it won't get them booted out of office.  I like the idea of opening up NICS so that responsible gun owners can make sure they're not selling to a prohibited person.  Making it mandatory wouldn't accomplish anything, though--law-abiding citizens would use it anyway, and criminals would continue to ignore it.

It is the responsibility of those currently in control of the government to ensure that concerns 1 and 2 are addressed and I don't care a lick about 3.  Do the right thing, personal consequences be damned.
Fair enough on #3, and I suppose so on #2, although those on the pro-gun-control side don't seem to care too much about it.  But #1 is the kicker.  Those on the left have lots of ideas that won't work, so the guys on the right reject them.  And those on the right have ideas that might work, but those ideas are rejected by those on the left because 1) the guys on the right came up with them, and 2) they're emotionally unpalatable (like arming teachers).


I've trimmed some of the quotes below for the sake of brevity.  I hope you don't mind.
Once guns are in classrooms, do you gueniely believe they won’t accidentally end up in the hands of students? Student (5 to 18 year olds) who are not trained in proper handling of deadly weapons, who are in some cases struggle to deal with their emotions, who can still confuse fantasy (tv) with reality, who have no concept of the consequences of their actions.
It's possible, but highly unlikely.  There are already millions of people who carry concealed in public, and you very rarely, if ever hear about a gun accidentally ending up in someone else's hands.  There are already school districts that allow teachers to carry concealed, and there have been no incidents that I've heard of where a kid has got ahold of it.  The point is to create uncertainty and risk for potential attackers.  Students (or attackers) won't know who (if anyone) is carrying.
Quote
Quote
This would certainly deter gun ownership among law-abiding citizens, but would not affect criminals.  Remember, the Sandy Hook shooter stole his firearms after murdering their owner.
Yes it will effect criminals. It enables the instant confiscation of weapons by police that are not legitimate.

It will ensure legitimate weapons are appropriately secured so harder to steal.
Can you give me a specific situation where this would make a difference?  Police already confiscate weapons from people who are "prohibited persons" (felons, mentally ill, etc).  As for security from theft, if a criminal has physical access to your house and knows where your gun safe is, chances are they'll get into it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ViUdd-2LM).  Sure, it increases the barrier to theft, but it's really still nibbling around the edges.

Quote
Quote
That's been tried many times.  It has never proven effective.

How do you know, your government isn’t allowed to gather the statistics? PS it worked in Australia. Not only did it reduce criminal gun use, it was very effective if continuing the decline of suicides.
I have a couple issues with this one:
1) Australia's crime rate, like the US's, was already on the decline. "Effective [at] continuing the decline..." is speculation.  All we know is that it was declining before the buyback, and it continued to decline afterward.
2) Australia's buyback was not voluntary.  Even law-abiding citizens (and likely, only law-abiding citizens) had to turn in their guns, even if they posed no threat to anyone.

Voluntary buybacks in the US have historically been political stunts.  "We took 2157 guns off the streets" sounds great, but when nearly all of the guns are bolt-action rifles, rusted pieces of junk, and pellet guns (seriously, I'm not kidding! (https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local-news/i-team-investigates/i-team-gun-buybacks-often-bring-in-broken-guns-bb-guns)), it becomes comical.  See also "tragic boating accident" :D
Quote
Quote
Can you expand on what sorts of statistics would be gathered, and what requirements would be affected?

That’s open for discussion, but I would expect stats to be gathered on all of the following incidents.

All reports to emergency services that involve guns. E.g.
1. Death by gun shot.
2. Injury by gun shot.
3. Shot fired in public.
4. Gun drawn in public
5. Gun drawn in self defence
6. Irresponsible use of a gun (I.e. waving around a gun at peoples faces in a shooting range)

I’d expect the following information to be gathered.
1. The intent of the incident (self defence, intimidation, murder)
2. The gun make/model
3. The legal status of the gun
4. The license level of the gun holder
5. Incident outcome
#1 is already tracked.  #4-6 are going to be really hard to track, from a practical perspective, for a couple reasons: 1) there's a lot of those types of events, 2) a lot of them happen with people who wouldn't be allowed to own guns, and 3) law-abiding folk will be afraid to report it because they (right, IMO) fear that they'll lose their ability to own a gun.
Quote
Quote
1) Not quite.  It actually increases the fear, because it gives more power to the government (at whatever level) to confiscate your guns.
2) I think you're conflating "moving toward greater responsibility" with "complying with laws because they're law-abiding people."  I don't think I know any gun owners who rate others' responsibility (or lack thereof) as a significant concern.  And gun owners aren't shy about telling someone they're being dangerous.
3) I don't see anything here that would affect criminals beyond what is already possible through existing gun laws.
1. Only those who flaunt the rules should fear greater responsibility.
2. We’ve already got an example in this thread of someone’s boss selling a gun to anyone. Responsibility of transfer of ownership is beneficial to responsible gun owners.
3. As mentioned above, instant confiscation of unregistered firearms by police. Reduced chance of the aft of guns. It all helps.

PS I'm glad we agree on the education front.
1) This sounds an awful lot like "nothing to hide, nothing to fear."  There's already a long and storied history of governments on various levels instituting gun-control measures and then abusing them to confiscate guns from innocent people without due process.  Like I stated earlier, New York's Safe Act has already racked up some impressively scary stories.
2) I may have misunderstood you on this one.  I thought you were referring safe storage of guns, but it now sounds like you meant background checks/tracing for private sales.  Is that correct?
3) Whose guns are getting confiscated here?  If it's a person who's allowed to own guns in general, why should it matter whether the gun is registered to them?  If it isn't, and they're allowed to own guns, just update the record--no need to confiscate the gun, nor is there any reason to.  (note: this is by no means an endorsement of any sort of registry)  If it's a criminal ("prohibited person") the police already confiscate guns.  So I fail to see how it would make a difference.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 21, 2018, 08:25:54 AM
Why does someone need to be an expert on firearms to have a valid opinion?
Their opinion is on outcomes, not inputs. They don't need to know every last detail and permutation of a subject to have a valid opinion.
(Think democracy.)

Lots of people have opinions on the safety of airplanes, trains, road vehicles, pharmaceuticals etc., all with out knowing the first thing about those subjects. Do they need to shut up too?

Under your premise, if the powers that be said they were going to build a nuclear plant beside your family's home, you and your neighbours opinion would mean nothing.

Show me where I said expert.
I'll wait.



However, pointing out where someone does not know the facts of the current law hardly means I want them to be an 'expert'.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 21, 2018, 09:19:03 AM
I don't care what happened in 2015.  It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government.  If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.
You're assuming that 1) the proposals will work, 2) it will pass constitutional muster, and 3) it won't get them booted out of office.  I like the idea of opening up NICS so that responsible gun owners can make sure they're not selling to a prohibited person.  Making it mandatory wouldn't accomplish anything, though--law-abiding citizens would use it anyway, and criminals would continue to ignore it.

It is the responsibility of those currently in control of the government to ensure that concerns 1 and 2 are addressed and I don't care a lick about 3.  Do the right thing, personal consequences be damned.
Fair enough on #3, and I suppose so on #2, although those on the pro-gun-control side don't seem to care too much about it.  But #1 is the kicker.  Those on the left have lots of ideas that won't work, so the guys on the right reject them.  And those on the right have ideas that might work, but those ideas are rejected by those on the left because 1) the guys on the right came up with them, and 2) they're emotionally unpalatable (like arming teachers).

Except that, unlike republicans and to my great frustration at times, democrats don't vote in lock step with their most extreme members.  If you can't get 9 yes votes on your legislation from senators Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp, Claire McCaskill, Angus King, Tom Carper, Bill Nelson, Mark Warner, Michael Bennet, John Tester and Doug Jones then it's just too damn conservative and you need to try harder.

PS. It might help your cause to stop saying that you want to arm teachers and instead actually explain that you just want to give them the option to be armed in order to give the appearance of a harder target whether they actually decide to be armed or not.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 21, 2018, 09:40:01 AM
I don't care what happened in 2015.  It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government.  If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.
You're assuming that 1) the proposals will work, 2) it will pass constitutional muster, and 3) it won't get them booted out of office.  I like the idea of opening up NICS so that responsible gun owners can make sure they're not selling to a prohibited person.  Making it mandatory wouldn't accomplish anything, though--law-abiding citizens would use it anyway, and criminals would continue to ignore it.

It is the responsibility of those currently in control of the government to ensure that concerns 1 and 2 are addressed and I don't care a lick about 3.  Do the right thing, personal consequences be damned.
Fair enough on #3, and I suppose so on #2, although those on the pro-gun-control side don't seem to care too much about it.  But #1 is the kicker.  Those on the left have lots of ideas that won't work, so the guys on the right reject them.  And those on the right have ideas that might work, but those ideas are rejected by those on the left because 1) the guys on the right came up with them, and 2) they're emotionally unpalatable (like arming teachers).

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.



Quote
As for security from theft, if a criminal has physical access to your house and knows where your gun safe is, chances are they'll get into it.  Sure, it increases the barrier to theft, but it's really still nibbling around the edges.

It's pretty easy for a criminal to break into your car and steal it (or anything inside it).  Most of us still lock our car though, because increasing barrier to theft reduces instances of theft.  There's also the knock on benefit of making it harder for a child in the home to gain access to a firearm.



3) Whose guns are getting confiscated here?  If it's a person who's allowed to own guns in general, why should it matter whether the gun is registered to them?  If it isn't, and they're allowed to own guns, just update the record--no need to confiscate the gun, nor is there any reason to.  (note: this is by no means an endorsement of any sort of registry)  If it's a criminal ("prohibited person") the police already confiscate guns.  So I fail to see how it would make a difference.

If there is no repercussion for having an unregistered gun after registry is required, then there would be no reason to ever register a gun.  Just wait until you get caught, and then have it registered.  This would defeat the whole purpose of a registry.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 21, 2018, 09:47:24 AM
I don't care what happened in 2015.  It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government.  If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.
You're assuming that 1) the proposals will work, 2) it will pass constitutional muster, and 3) it won't get them booted out of office.  I like the idea of opening up NICS so that responsible gun owners can make sure they're not selling to a prohibited person.  Making it mandatory wouldn't accomplish anything, though--law-abiding citizens would use it anyway, and criminals would continue to ignore it.

It is the responsibility of those currently in control of the government to ensure that concerns 1 and 2 are addressed and I don't care a lick about 3.  Do the right thing, personal consequences be damned.
Fair enough on #3, and I suppose so on #2, although those on the pro-gun-control side don't seem to care too much about it.  But #1 is the kicker.  Those on the left have lots of ideas that won't work, so the guys on the right reject them.  And those on the right have ideas that might work, but those ideas are rejected by those on the left because 1) the guys on the right came up with them, and 2) they're emotionally unpalatable (like arming teachers).

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.



Quote
As for security from theft, if a criminal has physical access to your house and knows where your gun safe is, chances are they'll get into it.  Sure, it increases the barrier to theft, but it's really still nibbling around the edges.

It's pretty easy for a criminal to break into your car and steal it (or anything inside it).  Most of us still lock our car though, because increasing barrier to theft reduces instances of theft.  There's also the knock on benefit of making it harder for a child in the home to gain access to a firearm.



3) Whose guns are getting confiscated here?  If it's a person who's allowed to own guns in general, why should it matter whether the gun is registered to them?  If it isn't, and they're allowed to own guns, just update the record--no need to confiscate the gun, nor is there any reason to.  (note: this is by no means an endorsement of any sort of registry)  If it's a criminal ("prohibited person") the police already confiscate guns.  So I fail to see how it would make a difference.

If there is no repercussion for having an unregistered gun after registry is required, then there would be no reason to ever register a gun.  Just wait until you get caught, and then have it registered.  This would defeat the whole purpose of a registry.

I'm pretty sure arming teachers will also have the residual effect of turning many current and potential teachers away from the profession.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 21, 2018, 10:08:23 AM
Relevant.


PS. It might help your cause to stop saying that you want to arm teachers and instead actually explain that you just want to give them the option to be armed in order to give the appearance of a harder target whether they actually decide to be armed or not.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 21, 2018, 10:10:36 AM
Except that, unlike republicans and to my great frustration at times, democrats don't vote in lock step with their most extreme members.  If you can't get 9 yes votes on your legislation from senators Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp, Claire McCaskill, Angus King, Tom Carper, Bill Nelson, Mark Warner, Michael Bennet, John Tester and Doug Jones then it's just too damn conservative and you need to try harder.

PS. It might help your cause to stop saying that you want to arm teachers and instead actually explain that you just want to give them the option to be armed in order to give the appearance of a harder target whether they actually decide to be armed or not.
I'll leave the whole "democrats don't vote in lock step comment" where it lies, as that's a whole other rabbit hole which is not relevant to the topic at hand.

I have stated in other posts in this thread that it would be a publicly-announced option for teachers, exactly as you describe.  "Arming teachers" is just a shorthand way of referring to it, rather than "allowing teachers to carry concealed in schools."

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.
It's a possibility, sure.  However, there's no data to confirm that hypothesis.  If anything, we have the opposite.  I believe both Texas and Utah allow teachers to carry concealed, and have done so for several years without incident.

Quote
It's pretty easy for a criminal to break into your car and steal it (or anything inside it).  Most of us still lock our car though, because increasing barrier to theft reduces instances of theft.  There's also the knock on benefit of making it harder for a child in the home to gain access to a firearm.
A barrier? Sure.  One that effectively and significantly reduces how many guns are in the hands of criminals?  I don't know--I haven't seen any studies which have looked into safe storage requirements and their effect on the rate of gun theft.
Quote
If there is no repercussion for having an unregistered gun after registry is required, then there would be no reason to ever register a gun.  Just wait until you get caught, and then have it registered.  This would defeat the whole purpose of a registry.
As I said earlier, we already have a system that disqualifies certain people from owning firearms, and police can and do confiscate guns from them.  What it sounds like you're proposing is a new system where the police can take your guns, not because of any actual threat to public safety, but because you didn't fill out some paperwork.  I have a problem with that.

Now, if you're looking to track down a straw purchaser via a gun's serial number, I think that's a valid motivation.  Serial numbers aren't hard to file off, however, if someone wants to avoid being found out.  Sure, it's a felony if you're caught, but if you're involved with a straw purchase, it's probably not the worst crime you've committed.

I'm pretty sure arming teachers will also have the residual effect of turning many current and potential teachers away from the profession.
I apologize if my intended meaning was unclear.  Nobody's advocating putting a gun in every classroom, or requiring teachers to be trained and armed.  What I'm in favor of is giving teachers the option, and then making it publicly known that teachers (and staff) may be armed.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on February 21, 2018, 10:14:10 AM
Why does someone need to be an expert on firearms to have a valid opinion?
Their opinion is on outcomes, not inputs. They don't need to know every last detail and permutation of a subject to have a valid opinion.
(Think democracy.)

Lots of people have opinions on the safety of airplanes, trains, road vehicles, pharmaceuticals etc., all with out knowing the first thing about those subjects. Do they need to shut up too?

Under your premise, if the powers that be said they were going to build a nuclear plant beside your family's home, you and your neighbours opinion would mean nothing.

Show me where I said expert.
I'll wait.



However, pointing out where someone does not know the facts of the current law hardly means I want them to be an 'expert'.

"I appreciate everyone's opinion on things to which they are knowledgeable"

equals

I don't appreciate anyone's opinion on things to which they are not knowledgeable.

and

To be truly knowledgeable on something would make you an expert.


expert
ˈɛkspəːt/Submit
noun
1.a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area.
 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 21, 2018, 10:31:00 AM
Why does someone need to be an expert on firearms to have a valid opinion?
Their opinion is on outcomes, not inputs. They don't need to know every last detail and permutation of a subject to have a valid opinion.
(Think democracy.)

Lots of people have opinions on the safety of airplanes, trains, road vehicles, pharmaceuticals etc., all with out knowing the first thing about those subjects. Do they need to shut up too?

Under your premise, if the powers that be said they were going to build a nuclear plant beside your family's home, you and your neighbours opinion would mean nothing.

Show me where I said expert.
I'll wait.



However, pointing out where someone does not know the facts of the current law hardly means I want them to be an 'expert'.

"I appreciate everyone's opinion on things to which they are knowledgeable"
equals
I don't appreciate anyone's opinion on things to which they are not knowledgeable.
and
To be truly knowledgeable on something would make you an expert.

expert
ˈɛkspəːt/Submit
noun
1.a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area.

You seem to not understanding the positions of adverbs in syntax.  I have underlined it for you.

Either way, those are some pretty big steps you're taking defending a position that is demonstrably false.

You cannot buy a gun at 16 in Texas (the original poster's location and statement).  Only way around it is with written permission of a parent or guardian (which would require them to be present).  The original statement: "It should not be easier to buy a gun than spray paint".  Clarified by the anecdotal statement "I bought a gun at 16 and the laws haven't changed".  To which I posted the legal code that, no, you could not buy a gun at 16 today in Texas, and therefore, it was not "easier to buy a gun than spraypaint".

But sure...  Try to make that out to mean I don't listen to anyone or value their opinion unless they are an expert of firearms law.  Thats TOTALLY what I meant...  (roll eyes)  /s

This is why these conversations never go anywhere.

Still waiting on anyone to discuss anything useful.  Prolly not gonna happen.  :/
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on February 21, 2018, 11:10:26 AM
Why does someone need to be an expert on firearms to have a valid opinion?
Their opinion is on outcomes, not inputs. They don't need to know every last detail and permutation of a subject to have a valid opinion.
(Think democracy.)

Lots of people have opinions on the safety of airplanes, trains, road vehicles, pharmaceuticals etc., all with out knowing the first thing about those subjects. Do they need to shut up too?

Under your premise, if the powers that be said they were going to build a nuclear plant beside your family's home, you and your neighbours opinion would mean nothing.

Show me where I said expert.
I'll wait.



However, pointing out where someone does not know the facts of the current law hardly means I want them to be an 'expert'.

"I appreciate everyone's opinion on things to which they are knowledgeable"
equals
I don't appreciate anyone's opinion on things to which they are not knowledgeable.
and
To be truly knowledgeable on something would make you an expert.

expert
ˈɛkspəːt/Submit
noun
1.a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area.

You seem to not understanding the positions of adverbs in syntax.  I have underlined it for you.

Either way, those are some pretty big steps you're taking defending a position that is demonstrably false.

You cannot buy a gun at 16 in Texas (the original poster's location and statement).  Only way around it is with written permission of a parent or guardian (which would require them to be present).  The original statement: "It should not be easier to buy a gun than spray paint".  Clarified by the anecdotal statement "I bought a gun at 16 and the laws haven't changed".  To which I posted the legal code that, no, you could not buy a gun at 16 today in Texas, and therefore, it was not "easier to buy a gun than spraypaint".

But sure...  Try to make that out to mean I don't listen to anyone or value their opinion unless they are an expert of firearms law.  Thats TOTALLY what I meant...  (roll eyes)  /s

This is why these conversations never go anywhere.

Still waiting on anyone to discuss anything useful.  Prolly not gonna happen.  :/

I'm just responding to comments and assertions you have made.

It's a forum discussing a hot topic. I can see you are frustrated. But there is no need for sarcasm...

Check out the other thread. I have proposed a starting point for a solution there.
Let me know what you think.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 21, 2018, 11:11:50 AM

Quote
If there is no repercussion for having an unregistered gun after registry is required, then there would be no reason to ever register a gun.  Just wait until you get caught, and then have it registered.  This would defeat the whole purpose of a registry.
As I said earlier, we already have a system that disqualifies certain people from owning firearms, and police can and do confiscate guns from them.  What it sounds like you're proposing is a new system where the police can take your guns, not because of any actual threat to public safety, but because you didn't fill out some paperwork.  I have a problem with that.

The current system intended to disqualify certain people from owning firearms doesn't work.


Currently:
You buy a gun privately.  You sell it privately to someone else without asking anything about the other person, as is your legal right.  Is he a criminal?  Who cares.  Are you a straw purchaser?  Who knows.  Is the weapon stolen, or has it been used in a crime?  You don't really know.


With a registry:
You buy a gun privately.  You sell it privately to someone else.  To transfer ownership, you were registered as the gun owner.  When you sell you change the registry from your name to the person you're selling it to.
- This ensures that everyone who has a gun transferred to them will actually get a background check.
- This makes it impossible to be a straw purchaser and not get caught (the gun will either be registered to you, or the criminal you're trying to sell to).
- If at some point in the future you're diagnosed as a danger to others or you become a criminal law enforcement can take away all of your firearms.
- You know that you're not buying a stolen weapon or a weapon used in a crime when buying privately.



Now, if you're looking to track down a straw purchaser via a gun's serial number, I think that's a valid motivation.  Serial numbers aren't hard to file off, however, if someone wants to avoid being found out.  Sure, it's a felony if you're caught, but if you're involved with a straw purchase, it's probably not the worst crime you've committed.

It's possible to circumvent nearly any law.  I can drive my car without insurance and get away with it.  That doesn't mean that insurance shouldn't be legally required to drive a car, or than having these laws are without value.



I apologize if my intended meaning was unclear.  Nobody's advocating putting a gun in every classroom, or requiring teachers to be trained and armed.  What I'm in favor of is giving teachers the option, and then making it publicly known that teachers (and staff) may be armed.

While I'm unconvinced that this would have any impact on school shootings, I don't really have a problem with it - provided that accidents with the guns don't ever happen in schools.  A kid who is shot by their teacher accidentally is just as dead as a kid who was shot by their classmate on a rampage.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on February 21, 2018, 11:35:41 AM
I don't understand why it's considered unreasonable to have a gun registry. We register cars. Hell, I can't even buy psuedophedrine anymore without being logged into a system to make sure I'm not buying too much of it. I was barred from buying one box of adult Sudafed and one bottle of children's once in VA when we were all miserably sick from a cold because that was just too much to buy at one time (the only time that YEAR I'd tried to buy it, mind you). Yet, deadly weapon? No registry, no limits. This seems entirely unreasonable to me on so many levels.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 21, 2018, 12:50:54 PM
As I said earlier, we already have a system that disqualifies certain people from owning firearms, and police can and do confiscate guns from them.  What it sounds like you're proposing is a new system where the police can take your guns, not because of any actual threat to public safety, but because you didn't fill out some paperwork.  I have a problem with that.
The current system intended to disqualify certain people from owning firearms doesn't work.
If the current system were used as intended, it *would* work.  Instead of creating a much more invasive system that will fail for the same reasons, let's fix the one we have.
Quote
Currently:
You buy a gun privately.  You sell it privately to someone else without asking anything about the other person, as is your legal right.  Is he a criminal?  Who cares.  Are you a straw purchaser?  Who knows.  Is the weapon stolen, or has it been used in a crime?  You don't really know.


With a registry:
You buy a gun privately.  You sell it privately to someone else.  To transfer ownership, you were registered as the gun owner.  When you sell you change the registry from your name to the person you're selling it to.
- This ensures that everyone who has a gun transferred to them will actually get a background check.
- This makes it impossible to be a straw purchaser and not get caught (the gun will either be registered to you, or the criminal you're trying to sell to).
- If at some point in the future you're diagnosed as a danger to others or you become a criminal law enforcement can take away all of your firearms.
- You know that you're not buying a stolen weapon or a weapon used in a crime when buying privately.
In order:
1) I assume that since background checks are only not required for private sales, that you're referring to private sales only.  Is that correct? Criminals already obtain 90% (IIRC) of their guns illegally, i.e. stolen or straw purchases, so this really just nibbles around the edges, at least by itself.  I'd be in favor of granting access to NICS, so if I sold a gun, I could make sure the buyer isn't prohibited.
2) Yes, this would aid in tracing a gun's chain of custody.  I read an article that said the FBI gets about 300,000 trace requests per year.  I wonder how many of them would actually result in criminal convictions?
3) There's no need for a registry here.  Get a court hearing to prove the person is a danger, get a court order for him/her to sell or relinquish his guns, search the house after.
4) I have a hard time believing that a lot of stolen/used-in-a-crime firearms are being sold to law-abiding people.  I'm sure there are a *few*, but c'mon.  Besides, why (other than the risk of the police confiscating it as evidence and/or confiscating it to return it to its owner) would I really care?  Heck, I'd *prefer* that type of weapon get back in the hands of a law-abiding citizen!
Quote
Now, if you're looking to track down a straw purchaser via a gun's serial number, I think that's a valid motivation.  Serial numbers aren't hard to file off, however, if someone wants to avoid being found out.  Sure, it's a felony if you're caught, but if you're involved with a straw purchase, it's probably not the worst crime you've committed.
It's possible to circumvent nearly any law.  I can drive my car without insurance and get away with it.  That doesn't mean that insurance shouldn't be legally required to drive a car, or than having these laws are without value.
True, but that's really apples and oranges.  If you choose not to get car insurance, you're probably not doing so in order to mask a more serious crime.
Quote
I apologize if my intended meaning was unclear.  Nobody's advocating putting a gun in every classroom, or requiring teachers to be trained and armed.  What I'm in favor of is giving teachers the option, and then making it publicly known that teachers (and staff) may be armed.
While I'm unconvinced that this would have any impact on school shootings, I don't really have a problem with it - provided that accidents with the guns don't ever happen in schools.  A kid who is shot by their teacher accidentally is just as dead as a kid who was shot by their classmate on a rampage.
Some states are already doing it with no issue.  Part of the difficulty here really is that mass school shootings are (thankfully!) so rare that it's really hard to apply statistics in a meaningful way, in order to draw conclusions.  Accidental shooting deaths are a also very small number, around 500 per year, and appear to be declining.  As concerns teachers carrying concealed, training and proper equipment will solve that issue anyway.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 21, 2018, 01:32:11 PM
As I said earlier, we already have a system that disqualifies certain people from owning firearms, and police can and do confiscate guns from them.  What it sounds like you're proposing is a new system where the police can take your guns, not because of any actual threat to public safety, but because you didn't fill out some paperwork.  I have a problem with that.
The current system intended to disqualify certain people from owning firearms doesn't work.
If the current system were used as intended, it *would* work.  Instead of creating a much more invasive system that will fail for the same reasons, let's fix the one we have.
Quote
Currently:
You buy a gun privately.  You sell it privately to someone else without asking anything about the other person, as is your legal right.  Is he a criminal?  Who cares.  Are you a straw purchaser?  Who knows.  Is the weapon stolen, or has it been used in a crime?  You don't really know.


With a registry:
You buy a gun privately.  You sell it privately to someone else.  To transfer ownership, you were registered as the gun owner.  When you sell you change the registry from your name to the person you're selling it to.
- This ensures that everyone who has a gun transferred to them will actually get a background check.
- This makes it impossible to be a straw purchaser and not get caught (the gun will either be registered to you, or the criminal you're trying to sell to).
- If at some point in the future you're diagnosed as a danger to others or you become a criminal law enforcement can take away all of your firearms.
- You know that you're not buying a stolen weapon or a weapon used in a crime when buying privately.
In order:
1) I assume that since background checks are only not required for private sales, that you're referring to private sales only.  Is that correct? Criminals already obtain 90% (IIRC) of their guns illegally, i.e. stolen or straw purchases, so this really just nibbles around the edges, at least by itself.  I'd be in favor of granting access to NICS, so if I sold a gun, I could make sure the buyer isn't prohibited.
2) Yes, this would aid in tracing a gun's chain of custody.  I read an article that said the FBI gets about 300,000 trace requests per year.  I wonder how many of them would actually result in criminal convictions?
3) There's no need for a registry here.  Get a court hearing to prove the person is a danger, get a court order for him/her to sell or relinquish his guns, search the house after.
4) I have a hard time believing that a lot of stolen/used-in-a-crime firearms are being sold to law-abiding people.  I'm sure there are a *few*, but c'mon.  Besides, why (other than the risk of the police confiscating it as evidence and/or confiscating it to return it to its owner) would I really care?  Heck, I'd *prefer* that type of weapon get back in the hands of a law-abiding citizen!

2)  Given that there are an awful lot of problems with the current paper trail, I'd suspect very few:
- It's not easily searchable (by law), which means that more time/effort/resources must be spent to follow it for an investigator.  There are limited resources investigating a crime, when you waste them like this it makes crime fighting less efficient overall.
- Firearms dealers who choose to sell to criminals are also in charge of the records that prove who they're selling to.
- Gun records are kept as paper copies by firearms dealers, and are occasionally subject to being destroyed by flood/fire/etc.  After 20 years, the records are destroyed and the guns become invisible.
- There's no record of any kind and the paper trail completely stops after a private sale

3)  Here's a scenario for you where the current system fails and a registry wouldn't - I'm a bad guy.  I want to shoot up the local school.  I've purchased a couple dozen guns from private sellers.  I keep some of them at the house, and some in a box in the woods.  Police get word of my plans, get a court order for my guns, and search the house.  They find some of my guns and head home happy, job well done.  Of course, I shoot up the school a couple days later . . . because there's no record of what weapons I have already amassed and nobody knew that they should have kept looking.

There are many more scenarios like this one.

4)  Maybe the gun was used a couple weeks ago in an armed robbery, and now the criminals are making it disappear . . . so you're helping them hide evidence of their crime.  Maybe that kind of thing never happens.  The fact of the matter is, you don't know where the weapon comes from because there's no way of knowing.  With a registry there would be.




Quote
Now, if you're looking to track down a straw purchaser via a gun's serial number, I think that's a valid motivation.  Serial numbers aren't hard to file off, however, if someone wants to avoid being found out.  Sure, it's a felony if you're caught, but if you're involved with a straw purchase, it's probably not the worst crime you've committed.
It's possible to circumvent nearly any law.  I can drive my car without insurance and get away with it.  That doesn't mean that insurance shouldn't be legally required to drive a car, or than having these laws are without value.
True, but that's really apples and oranges.  If you choose not to get car insurance, you're probably not doing so in order to mask a more serious crime.

A lot of people who have lost their licences (for say DUIs) will drive without insurance because they know they can't get it.  So yeah, it is being used to mask a serious crime.

Quote
I apologize if my intended meaning was unclear.  Nobody's advocating putting a gun in every classroom, or requiring teachers to be trained and armed.  What I'm in favor of is giving teachers the option, and then making it publicly known that teachers (and staff) may be armed.
While I'm unconvinced that this would have any impact on school shootings, I don't really have a problem with it - provided that accidents with the guns don't ever happen in schools.  A kid who is shot by their teacher accidentally is just as dead as a kid who was shot by their classmate on a rampage.
Some states are already doing it with no issue.  Part of the difficulty here really is that mass school shootings are (thankfully!) so rare that it's really hard to apply statistics in a meaningful way, in order to draw conclusions.  Accidental shooting deaths are a also very small number, around 500 per year, and appear to be declining.  As concerns teachers carrying concealed, training and proper equipment will solve that issue anyway.

There have been 241 accidental shootings this year and we're not even out of the second month (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/)).  Of course, that doesn't count the large numbers that are not reported, which I think you were mentioning earlier:

Quote
Quote
4. Gun drawn in public
5. Gun drawn in self defence
6. Irresponsible use of a gun (I.e. waving around a gun at peoples faces in a shooting range)
#4-6 are going to be really hard to track, from a practical perspective, for a couple reasons: 1) there's a lot of those types of events, 2) a lot of them happen with people who wouldn't be allowed to own guns, and 3) law-abiding folk will be afraid to report it because they (right, IMO) fear that they'll lose their ability to own a gun.
 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 21, 2018, 01:38:58 PM
Quote
Some states are already doing it with no issue.  Part of the difficulty here really is that mass school shootings are (thankfully!) so rare that it's really hard to apply statistics in a meaningful way, in order to draw conclusions.  Accidental shooting deaths are a also very small number, around 500 per year, and appear to be declining. As concerns teachers carrying concealed, training and proper equipment will solve that issue anyway.

There have been 241 accidental shootings this year and we're not even out of the second month (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/)).  Of course, that doesn't count the large numbers that are not reported, which I think you were mentioning earlier:


Per your link:  46 accidental shooting deaths this year.  Not 241.
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/accidental-shooting (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/accidental-shooting)
Keep it honest.

Edit to add:
That puts us on track for 329 accidental shooting deaths in 2018.
Out of 323,100,000.
or 1 -in- 1,000,000.

While it is tragic, why is this statistically relevant?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 21, 2018, 01:52:16 PM
And considering this was categorized as a "Mass Shooting", it brings the data into suspicion.

http://krqe.com/2018/02/20/deputy-involved-shooting-in-southwest-albuquerque/ (http://krqe.com/2018/02/20/deputy-involved-shooting-in-southwest-albuquerque/)

Quote
Once deputies arrived at the CNM parking lot, they found out the truck was stolen.

Bernalillo County Sheriff Manuel Gonzales said when deputies approached the truck, it rammed into one of the deputy’s vehicle and a pursuit ensued.

The suspect led deputies into the Valley Gardens neighborhood near Coors Boulevard and Gun Club Road.

Sheriff Gonzales says deputies fired shots at the 28-year-old man who was in the truck.

The suspect is in critical condition at this time, his name has also not yet been released.

Gun who stole a truck and got shot ≠ mass shooting.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 21, 2018, 01:55:25 PM
Quote
Some states are already doing it with no issue.  Part of the difficulty here really is that mass school shootings are (thankfully!) so rare that it's really hard to apply statistics in a meaningful way, in order to draw conclusions.  Accidental shooting deaths are a also very small number, around 500 per year, and appear to be declining. As concerns teachers carrying concealed, training and proper equipment will solve that issue anyway.

There have been 241 accidental shootings this year and we're not even out of the second month (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/)).  Of course, that doesn't count the large numbers that are not reported, which I think you were mentioning earlier:


Per your link:  46 accidental shooting deaths this year.  Not 241.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/accidental-shooting (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/accidental-shooting)

Keep it honest.

I appreciate that you've decided to start checking references.  You can rest assured that my comment was honest.

The 241 number is listed as the number of confirmed 'unintentional shootings' from the main page of the website.  It's the last number given in the box on the left.  (Try ctrl-f and then type "unintentional" and you'll see it.)  This is a combination of people injured by accident and killed by accident.  You appear to only be counting the dead.

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer that my child neither die nor be shot because an idiot with a gun in the classroom made a mistake.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 21, 2018, 02:01:29 PM
And considering this was categorized as a "Mass Shooting", it brings the data into suspicion.

http://krqe.com/2018/02/20/deputy-involved-shooting-in-southwest-albuquerque/ (http://krqe.com/2018/02/20/deputy-involved-shooting-in-southwest-albuquerque/)

Quote
Once deputies arrived at the CNM parking lot, they found out the truck was stolen.

Bernalillo County Sheriff Manuel Gonzales said when deputies approached the truck, it rammed into one of the deputy’s vehicle and a pursuit ensued.

The suspect led deputies into the Valley Gardens neighborhood near Coors Boulevard and Gun Club Road.

Sheriff Gonzales says deputies fired shots at the 28-year-old man who was in the truck.

The suspect is in critical condition at this time, his name has also not yet been released.

Gun who stole a truck and got shot ≠ mass shooting.

The way that the numbers are tallied is laid out quite clearly:  http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodology (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodology)

They consider a mass shooting an event where four or more people were shot.  This is consistent with the FBI "mass murder" definition, 4 or more people killed.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 21, 2018, 02:17:41 PM
Quote
Some states are already doing it with no issue.  Part of the difficulty here really is that mass school shootings are (thankfully!) so rare that it's really hard to apply statistics in a meaningful way, in order to draw conclusions.  Accidental shooting deaths are a also very small number, around 500 per year, and appear to be declining. As concerns teachers carrying concealed, training and proper equipment will solve that issue anyway.

There have been 241 accidental shootings this year and we're not even out of the second month (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/)).  Of course, that doesn't count the large numbers that are not reported, which I think you were mentioning earlier:


Per your link:  46 accidental shooting deaths this year.  Not 241.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/accidental-shooting (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/accidental-shooting)

Keep it honest.

I appreciate that you've decided to start checking references.  You can rest assured that my comment was honest.

The 241 number is listed as the number of confirmed 'unintentional shootings' from the main page of the website.  It's the last number given in the box on the left.  (Try ctrl-f and then type "unintentional" and you'll see it.)  This is a combination of people injured by accident and killed by accident.  You appear to only be counting the dead.

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer that my child neither die nor be shot because an idiot with a gun in the classroom made a mistake.

Except you bolded his statement regarding shooting deaths being around 500 per year and subsequently listed your number of "241 accidental shootings this year and we're not even out of the second month" in direct contradiction with the numbers he posted.

If the conversation isn't going to be honest, why bother.


Unless somebody starts wanting to have a useful conversation about potential solutions that don't include confiscation of 70%+ of the lawful guns in this country, I'm out.

(https://media.makeameme.org/created/peace.jpg)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on February 21, 2018, 02:25:10 PM
^^ This.
This is why you are a part of the problem and not the solution.

"If no one will talk about the solution that I prefer, then I am taking my ball and going home" [stomps off]

B' bye
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 21, 2018, 02:33:53 PM
^^ This.
This is why you are a part of the problem and not the solution.

"If no one will talk about the solution that I prefer, then I am taking my ball and going home" [stomps off]

B' bye

Also relevant:

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 21, 2018, 02:47:31 PM
Quote
Some states are already doing it with no issue.  Part of the difficulty here really is that mass school shootings are (thankfully!) so rare that it's really hard to apply statistics in a meaningful way, in order to draw conclusions.  Accidental shooting deaths are a also very small number, around 500 per year, and appear to be declining. As concerns teachers carrying concealed, training and proper equipment will solve that issue anyway.

There have been 241 accidental shootings this year and we're not even out of the second month (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/)).  Of course, that doesn't count the large numbers that are not reported, which I think you were mentioning earlier:


Per your link:  46 accidental shooting deaths this year.  Not 241.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/accidental-shooting (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/accidental-shooting)

Keep it honest.

I appreciate that you've decided to start checking references.  You can rest assured that my comment was honest.

The 241 number is listed as the number of confirmed 'unintentional shootings' from the main page of the website.  It's the last number given in the box on the left.  (Try ctrl-f and then type "unintentional" and you'll see it.)  This is a combination of people injured by accident and killed by accident.  You appear to only be counting the dead.

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer that my child neither die nor be shot because an idiot with a gun in the classroom made a mistake.

Except you bolded his statement regarding shooting deaths being around 500 per year and subsequently listed your number of "241 accidental shootings this year and we're not even out of the second month" in direct contradiction with the numbers he posted.

If the conversation isn't going to be honest, why bother.


Unless somebody starts wanting to have a useful conversation about potential solutions that don't include confiscation of 70%+ of the lawful guns in this country, I'm out.

We were discussing the idea of arming teachers.  zolotiyeruki mentioned that he thought there weren't many accidental gun deaths each year.  I mentioned in response that there were a lot of accidents involving guns already this year.  At this point you jumped in and accused me of being dishonest.  So I took the time to show you where the number I quoted came from and explained why you were seeing a different number (you were looking at different data).  Then you accused the website that I was getting information from of being dishonest.  I showed you their methodology.  Now you're accusing me of being dishonest again because you didn't bother to read the exchange you started commenting on.

This is all coming after you posted #268 in this thread - a collection of outright fabricated quotations, and quotes taken out of context presented as fact by you.

I am glad that you've decided that telling the truth is important to you.  I haven't been lying though.  Zolotiyeruki and I weren't even discussing confiscating guns, we were discussing the merits of arming teachers.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 21, 2018, 03:30:09 PM
Umm . . . if you read a bit further on in the link you posted:

Quote
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the transfer was to a minor whose parent or the person having legal custody of the minor had given written permission for the sale or, if the transfer was other than a sale, the parent or person having legal custody had given effective consent.

I suspect that what happened was the guy's mom told the gun store it was cool - which then means there's no barrier to selling (or giving) a minor a gun.

Still not "easier than spray paint".

Move past the straw man.  Get on to real solutions.

Sorry, it wasn't in Texas, my apologies.  I'm in Texas now but I wasn't twenty years ago.

Regardless, I'll put down my straw man about the spray paint.  Clearly there IS no store with a more restrictive policy regarding the sale of spray paint than firearms.  No store ever recognized there was a potential harm in selling spray paint to minors and enacted, on their own, independent of congressional action, a set of rules designed to limit the distribution to potentially irresponsible consumers.  That never happened, you are correct.  It is a straw man fallacy to suggest that a retailer of a product could decide not to sell it to a particular non-protected group without needing the federal or state government to forbid them from selling it.  That would almost be like personal responsibility.  That would almost be like a local solution.  No reason to bring it up here at all.  I apologize.

Unfortunately, I don't really understand your statement regarding background checks.

I suppose there's someone out there that believes the minimal requirement for a background check that was so effective it allowed an asshole with known mental issues who had made violent threats legally purchase a weapon he'd use to slaughter little girls and teachers...

Someone who believes that check requirement's failure is evidence that no such check could work?  Is that what you were saying?  Or someone who's saying that check does work and there will be those who slip through the cracks?

I don't really follow what you were saying.

Do you get what I'm saying?  If gun advocates have a solution that will stop this from happening lets hear it?  Because where I'm at, I've heard the whinging for decades about how it can't be stopped without trampling the rights of legal owners and I'm sorta like...fuck it...lets change the constitution and trample those rights.  I no longer give a shit about your rights, you've had twenty years to fix this at least and near as I can tell you've done fuck all, so, yea, lets take all your guns away.  All I hear whenever the subject comes up is what's wrong with everyone else's ideas.  Nothing is not an acceptable path forward.

I'm prepared to let the gun rights activists lead us to progress, that's cool.  I don't understand guns?  Sure, fuck it, lets go with that.  You fix it then.  But if it doesn't work we're taking away your guns.  Clock is ticking.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Peter Parker on February 21, 2018, 03:43:18 PM
Lot's of people have talked about the influence of the NRA.  This gives you an idea of their reach.  And if you think (like I do) that money isn't given without something expected in return, then maybe you'll feel better giving a few people a call and tell them what you think.  I've been feeling GREAT all day...



NAME                          NRA FUNDING*                 PHONE NUMBER
 
ALABAMA
REP. ROBERT ADERHOLT      $49,928           (202) 225-4876
REP. MO BROOKS                  $5,000             (202) 225-4801
REP. BRADLEY BYRNE           $8,237             (202) 225-4931
REP. GARY PALMER              $5,000             (202) 225-4921
REP. MARTHA ROBY              $6,000             (202) 225-2901
REP. MIKE ROGERS               $33,079           (202) 225-3261
SEN. RICHARD SHELBY         $259,464         (202) 224-5744
 
ALASKA
REP. DON YOUNG                  $246,285         (202) 225-5765
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI         $141,536         (202) 224-6665
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN              $565                (202) 224-3004
 
ARIZONA
REP. ANDY BIGGS                  $2,000             (202) 225-2635
REP. PAUL GOSAR                 $12,591           (202) 225-2315
REP. MARTHA MCSALLY        $68,234           (202) 225-2542
REP. DAVID SCHWEIKERT     77,687             (202) 225-2190
SEN. JEFF FLAKE                   $365,302         (202) 224-4521
 
ARKANSAS
REP. RICK CRAWFORD          $8,977             (202) 225-4076
REP. FRENCH HILL                 $543,612         (202) 225-2506
REP. BRUCE WESTERMAN     $9,504             (202) 225-3772
REP. STEVE WOMACK           $9,500             (202) 225-4301
SEN. JOHN BOOZMAN            $82,352           (202) 224-4843
SEN. TOM COTTON                $1,968,714       (202) 224-2353
 
CALIFORNIA
REP. KEN CALVERT               $61,125           (202) 225-1986
REP. PAUL COOK                   $8,000             (202) 225-5861
REP. JEFF DENHAM               $46,861           (202) 225-4540
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER         $13,000           (202) 225-5672
REP. DARRELL ISSA               $37,636           (202) 225-3906
REP. STEVE KNIGHT              $13,487           (202) 225-1956
REP. DOUG LAMALFA            $9,590             (202) 225-3076
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY         $33,940           (202) 225-2915
REP. TOM MCCLINTOCK        $52,842           (202) 225-2511
REP. DEVIN NUNES                $23,030           (202) 225-2523
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER   $34,817           (202) 225-2415
REP. ED ROYCE                     $38,800           (202) 225-4111
REP. DAVID VALADAO           $51,428           (202) 225-4695
REP. MIMI WALTERS              $4,000             (202) 225-5611
 
COLORADO
REP. KENNETH BUCK            $800,544         (202) 225-4676
REP. MIKE COFFMAN             $112,054         (202) 225-7882
REP. DOUGLAS LAMBORN     $32,560           (202) 225-4422
REP. SCOTT TIPTON              $105,214         (202) 225-4761
SEN. CORY GARDNER           $1,231,079       (202) 224-5941
 
FLORIDA
REP. GUS BILIRAKIS              $16,450           (202) 225-5755
REP. VERNON BUCHANAN     $19,940           (202) 225-5015
REP. RON DESANTIS              $5,000             (202) 225-2706
REP. MARIO DIAZ-BALART     $32,002           (202) 225-4211
REP. NEAL DUNN                   $5,199             (202) 225-5235
REP. MATT GAETZ                 $1,000             (202) 225-4136
REP. BRIAN MAST                  $32,519           (202) 225-3026
REP. BILL POSEY                   $15,936           (202) 225-3671
REP. TOM ROONEY                $10,500           (202) 225-5792
REP. DENNIS ROSS                19,375             (202) 225-1252
REP. JOHN RUTHERFORD     $1,000             (202) 225-2501
REP. DANIEL WEBSTER         $37,788           (202) 225-1002
REP. TED YOHO                     $4,092             (202) 225-5744
SEN. MARCO RUBIO               $1,012,980       (202) 224-3041
 
 
GEORGIA
REP. RICHARD ALLEN            $4,000             (202) 225-2823
REP. SANFORD BISHOP         $49,496           (202) 225-3631
REP. BUDDY CARTER            $4,352            (202) 225-5831
REP. DOUG COLLINS             $11,140           (202) 225-9893
REP. DREW FERGUSON         $3,000             (202) 225-5901
REP. TOM GRAVES                $13,650           (202) 225-5211
REP. KAREN HANDEL             $24,997           (202) 225-4501
REP. JODY HICE                     $4,000             (202) 225-4101
REP. BARRY LOUDERMILK    $5,000             (202) 225-2931
REP. AUSTIN SCOTT              $7,500             (202) 225-6531
REP. ROB WOODALL              $2,000             (202) 225-4272
SEN. JOHNNY ISAKSON         $130,809         (202) 224-3643
SEN. DAVID PERDUE              $355,854         (202) 224-3521
 
IDAHO
REP. RAUL LABRADOR          $14,813           (202) 225-6611
REP. MIKE SIMPSON              $385,731         (202) 225-5531
SEN. MIKE CRAPO                  $59,989           (202) 224-6142
SEN. JAMES RISCH                 $18,850           (202) 224-2752
 
ILLINOIS
REP. MIKE BOST                    $8,760             (202) 225-5661
REP. RODNEY DAVIS             $45,269           (202) 225-2371
REP. RANDY HULTGREN        $16,254           (202) 225-2976
REP. ADAM KINZINGER          $6,030             (202) 225-3635
REP. DARIN LAHOOD             $17,990           (202) 225-6201
REP. JOHN SHIMKUS             $59,304           (202) 225-5271
 
INDIANA
REP. JIM BANKS                     $2,000             (202) 225-4436
REP. SUSAN BROOKS            $3,000             (202) 225-2276
REP. LARRY BUCSHON          $11,379           (202) 225-4636
REP. TREY HOLLINGSWORTH $4,865 (202) 225-5315
REP. LUKE MESSER               $8,000             (202) 225-3021
REP. TODD ROKITA                $7,000             (202) 225-5037
REP. JACKIE WALORSKI        $20,572           (202) 225-3915
SEN. TODD YOUNG                $450,095         (202) 224-5623
 
 
 
IOWA
REP. ROD BLUM                     $45,279           (202) 225-2911
REP. STEVEN KING                $63,404           (202) 225-4426
REP. DAVID YOUNG               $384,121         (202) 225-5476
SEN. JONI ERNST                   $331,984         (202) 224-3254
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY        $235,907         (202) 224-3744
 
KANSAS
REP. RON ESTES                   $6,979             (202) 225-6216
REP. LYNN JENKINS               $8,000             (202) 225-6601
REP. ROGER MARSHALL       $3,500             (202) 225-2715
REP. KEVIN YODER                $52,938           (202) 225-2865
SEN. JERRY MORAN              $34,149           (202) 224-6521
SEN. PAT ROBERTS               $707,084         (202) 224-4774
 
KENTUCKY
REP. ANDY BARR                   $11,274           (202) 225-4706
REP. JAMES COMER              $11,192           (202) 225-3115
REP. BRETT GUTHRIE            $10,500           (202) 225-3501
REP. THOMAS MASSIE           $2,000             (202) 225-3465
REP. HAL ROGERS                 $60,429           (202) 225-4601
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL      $820,375         (202) 224-2541
SEN. RAND PAUL                   $104,456         (202) 224-4343
 
LOUISIANA
REP. RALPH ABRAHAM          $4,974             (202) 225-8490
REP. GARRET GRAVES          $5,900             202) 225-3901
REP. CLAY HIGGINS               $3,500             (202) 225-2031
REP. MIKE JOHNSON             $7,223             (202) 225-2777
REP. STEVE SCALISE             $36,250           (202) 225-3015
SEN. BILL CASSIDY                $419,651         (202) 224-5824
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY            $215,788         (202) 224-4623
 
MAINE
REP. BRUCE POLIQUIN          $135,636         (202) 225-6306
 
MARYLAND
REP. ANDY HARRIS                $25,447           (202) 225-5311
 
MICHIGAN
REP. JUSTIN AMASH              $1,000             (202) 225-3831
REP. JOHN BERGMAN            $6,450             (202) 225-4735
REP. MIKE BISHOP                 $10,082           (202) 225-4872
REP. BILL HUIZENGA              $11,650           (202) 225-4401
REP. PAUL MITCHELL            $3,000             (202) 225-2106
REP. JOHN MOOLENAAR       $10,554           (202) 225-3561
REP. DAVE TROTT                 $5,435             (202) 225-8171
REP. FRED UPTON                 $12,106           (202) 225-3761
REP. TIM WALBERG               $96,138           (202) 225-6276
 
MINNESOTA
REP. TOM EMMER                  $3,000             (202) 225-2331
REP. JASON LEWIS                $7,619             (202) 225-2271
REP. ERIK PAULSEN              $31,613           (202) 225-2871
REP. COLLIN PETERSON       $46,759           (202) 225-2165
 
MISSISSIPPI
REP. GREGG HARPER           $8,150             (202) 225-5031
REP. TRENT KELLY                $2,000             (202) 225-4306
REP. STEVEN PALAZZO         $7,250             (202) 225-5772
SEN. THAD COCHRAN            $65,833           (202) 224-5054
SEN. ROGER WICKER            $89,406           (202) 224-6253
 
MISSOURI
REP. SAM GRAVES                $97,394           (202) 225-7041
REP. VICKY HARTZLER          $10,359           (202) 225-2876
REP. BILLY LONG                   $10,500           (202) 225-6536
REP. BLAINE LUETKEMEYER $39,375           (202) 225-2956
REP. JASON SMITH                $6,500             (202) 225-4404
REP. ANN WAGNER                $8,187             (202) 225-1621
SEN. ROY BLUNT                   $1,488,706       (202) 224-5721
 
MONTANA
REP. GREG GIANFORTE        $73,009           (202) 225-3211
SEN. STEVE DAINES              $85,432           (202) 224-2651
 
NEBRASKA
REP. DONALD JOHN BACON   $18,328           (202) 225-4155
REP. JEFF FORTENBERRY     $21,628           (202) 225-4806
REP. ADRIAN SMITH               $16,800           (202) 225-6435
SEN. DEB FISCHER                $14,309           (202) 224-6551
SEN. BEN SASSE                    $68,623           (202) 224-4224
 
NEVADA
REP. MARK AMODEI               $18,640           (202) 225-6155
SEN. DEAN HELLER               $65,022           (202) 224-6244
 
NEW JERSEY
REP. FRANK LOBIONDO         $1,536             (202) 225-6572
REP. THOMAS MACARTHUR   $7,280             (202) 225-4765
 
NEW MEXICO
REP. STEVE PEARCE             $88,314           (202) 225-2365
 
NEW YORK
REP. CHRIS COLLINS             $5,000             (202) 225-5265
REP. JOHN FASO                   $44,939           (202) 225-5614
REP. JOHN KATKO                 $46,001           (202) 225-3701
REP. TOM REED                     $22,162           (202) 225-3161
REP. ELISE STEFANIK            $7,179             (202) 225-4611
REP. CLAUDIA TENNEY          $46,529           (202) 225-3665
REP. LEE ZELDIN                   $56,281           (202) 225-3826
 
NORTH CAROLINA
REP. TED BUDD                     $4,000             (202) 225-4531
REP. VIRGINIA FOXX              $22,078           (202) 225-2071
REP. GEORGE HOLDING        $8,797             (202) 225-3032
REP. RICHARD HUDSON        $18,926           (202) 225-3715
REP. WALTER JONES JR.       $56,655           (202) 225-3415
REP. PATRICK MCHENRY      $43,070           (202) 225-2576
REP. MARK MEADOWS          $4,150             (202) 225-6401
REP. ROBERT PITTENGER     $12,113           (202) 225-1976
REP. DAVID ROUZER             $2,427             (202) 225-2731
REP. MARK WALKER              $3,000             (202) 225-3065
SEN. RICHARD BURR             $1,399,698       (202) 224-3154
SEN. THOM TILLIS                  $1,971,554       (202) 224-6342
 
NORTH DAKOTA
REP. KEVIN CRAMER             $12,711           (202) 225-2611
SEN. JOHN HOEVEN              $21,050           (202) 224-2551
 
OHIO
REP. STEVE CHABOT             $113,689         (202) 225-2216
REP. WARREN DAVIDSON     $2,000             (202) 225-6205
REP. BOB GIBBS                    $10,442           (202) 225-6265
REP. BILL JOHNSON              $58,985           (202) 225-5705
REP. JIM JORDAN                  $15,878           (202) 225-2676
REP. DAVID JOYCE                $47,840           (202) 225-5731
REP. ROBERT LATTA             $42,423           (202) 225-6405
REP. JIM RENACCI                 $45,656           (202) 225-3876
REP. STEVE STIVERS            $70,402           (202) 225-2015
REP. MICHAEL TURNER         $22,866           (202) 225-6465
REP. BRAD WENSTRUP         $7,000             (202) 225-3164
SEN. ROB PORTMAN              $1,472,789       (202) 224-3353
 
OKLAHOMA
REP. JAMES BRIDENSTINE    $3,000             (202) 225-2211
REP. TOM COLE                     $26,521           (202) 225-6165
REP. FRANK LUCAS               $52,121           (202) 225-5565
REP. MARKWAYNE MULLIN    $8,311             (202) 225-2701
REP. STEVE RUSSELL            $4,000             (202) 225-2132
SEN. JAMES INHOFE             $66,758           (202) 224-4721
SEN. JAMES LANKFORD        $18,955           (202) 224-5754
 
OREGON
REP. GREG WALDEN              $45,746           (202) 225-6730
 
PENNSYLVANIA
REP. LOU BARLETTA              $7,500             (202) 225-6511
REP. MIKE KELLY                   $32,109           (202) 225-5406
REP. TOM MARINO                 $8,000             (202) 225-3731
REP. SCOTT PERRY               $8,500             (202) 225-5836
REP. KEITH ROTHFUS           $5,500             (202) 225-2065
REP. BILL SHUSTER               $82,150           (202) 225-2431
REP. LLOYD SMUCKER          $222,736         (202) 225-2411
REP. GLENN THOMPSON       $10,500           (202) 225-5121
 
SOUTH CAROLINA
REP. JEFF DUNCAN               $12,500           (202) 225-5301
REP. TREY GOWDY                $7,150             (202) 225-6030
REP. RALPH NORMAN            $10,029           (202) 225-5501
REP. TOM RICE                      $6,000             (202) 225-9895
REP. MARK SANFORD            $12,290           (202) 225-3176
REP. JOE WILSON                  $20,271           (202) 225-2452
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM         $50,946           (202) 224-5972
SEN. TIM SCOTT                     $18,513           (202) 224-6121
 
 
SOUTH DAKOTA
REP. KRISTI NOEM                 $7,769             (202) 225-2801
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS               $89,433           (202) 224-5842
SEN. JOHN THUNE                 $632,486         (202) 224-2321
 
TENNESSEE
REP. DIANE BLACK                $22,991           (202) 225-4231
REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN    $32,951           (202) 225-2811
REP. SCOTT DESJARLAIS      $9,511             (202) 225-6831
REP. JOHN DUNCAN JR.        $24,201           (202) 225-5435
REP. CHUCK FLEISCHMANN   $8,922             (202) 225-3271
REP. DAVID KUSTOFF            $3,000             (202) 225-4714
SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER      $25,293           (202) 224-4944
SEN. BOB CORKER                $79,203           (202) 224-3344
 
TEXAS
REP. JODEY ARRINGTON      $2,000             (202) 225-4005
REP. BRIAN BABIN                 $7,500             (202) 225-1555
REP. JOE BARTON                 $63,912           (202) 225-2002
REP. KEVIN BRADY                $30,005           (202) 225-4901
REP. MICHAEL BURGESS      $17,214           (202) 225-7772
REP. JOHN CARTER               $27,014           (202) 225-3864
REP. MIKE CONAWAY            $16,064           (202) 225-3605
REP. HENRY CUELLAR           $26,344           (202) 225-1640
REP. JOHN CULBERSON        $41,389           (202) 225-2571
REP. BLAKE FARENTHOLD    $9,500             (202) 225-7742
REP. BILL FLORES                 $12,000           (202) 225-6105
REP. LOUIS GOHMERT JR.     $13,450           (202) 225-3035
REP. KAY GRANGER              $19,014           (202) 225-5071
REP. JEB HENSARLING          $29,539           (202) 225-3484
REP. WILL HURD                    $27,771           (202) 225-4511
REP. SAM JOHNSON              $35,014           (202) 225-4201
REP. KENNY MARCHANT       $14,814           (202) 225-6605
REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL         $28,916           (202) 225-2401
REP. PETE OLSON                 $17,950           (202) 225-5951
REP. TED POE                        $15,500           (202) 225-6565
REP. JOHN LEE RATCLIFFE    $4,500             (202) 225-6673
REP. PETE SESSIONS            $108,111         (202) 225-2231
REP. LAMAR SMITH                $41,014           (202) 225-4236
REP. MAC THORNBERRY       $31,514           (202) 225-3706
REP. RANDY WEBER              $2,000             (202) 225-2831
REP. ROGER WILLIAMS         $6,500             (202) 225-9896
SEN. JOHN CORNYN              $71,995           (202) 224-2934
SEN. TED CRUZ                      $77,450           (202) 224-5922
 
UTAH
REP. ROB BISHOP                  $24,302           (202) 225-0453
REP. JOHN CURTIS                $1,000             (202) 225-7751
REP. MIA LOVE                       $4,013             (202) 225-3011
REP. CHRIS STEWART           $8,000             (202) 225-9730
SEN. ORRIN HATCH               $140,748         (202) 224-5251
SEN. MIKE LEE                       $8,291             (202) 224-5444
 
VIRGINIA
REP. DAVE BRAT                    $4,000             (202) 225-2815
REP. BARBARA COMSTOCK   $124,301         (202) 225-5136
REP. TOM GARRETT              $7,174             (202) 225-4711
REP. BOB GOODLATTE          $136,424         (202) 225-5431
REP. MORGAN GRIFFITH       $11,352           (202) 225-3861
REP. SCOTT TAYLOR             $5,290             (202) 225-4215
REP. ROB WITTMAN               $25,221           (202) 225-4261
 
WASHINGTON
REP. JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER $95,298      (202) 225-3536
REP. DAN NEWHOUSE           $4,000             (202) 225-5816
REP. DAVE REICHERT             $18,436          (202) 225-7761
REP. CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS $26,766 (202) 225-2006
 
WEST VIRGINIA
REP. EVAN JENKINS              $4,000             (202) 225-3452
REP. DAVID MCKINLEY          $10,500           (202) 225-4172
REP. ALEX MOONEY              $15,016           (202) 225-2711
SEN. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO $112,992      (202) 224-6472
 
WISCONSIN
REP. SEAN DUFFY                 $54,514           (202) 225-3365
REP. MIKE GALLAGHER         $40,262           (202) 225-5665
REP. GLENN GROTHMAN       $4,000             (202) 225-2476
REP. RON KIND                      $10,550           (202) 225-5506
REP. PAUL RYAN                    $61,401           (202) 225-3031
REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR. $20,468   (202) 225-5101
SEN. RON JOHNSON              $1,015,173       (202) 224-5323
 
WYOMING
REP. LIZ CHENEY                   $1,000            (202) 225-2311
SEN. JOHN BARRASSO          $21,489           (202) 224-6441
SEN. MIKE ENZI                      $24,722            (202) 22
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on February 21, 2018, 04:02:44 PM
I don't understand why it's considered unreasonable to have a gun registry. We register cars. Hell, I can't even buy psuedophedrine anymore without being logged into a system to make sure I'm not buying too much of it. I was barred from buying one box of adult Sudafed and one bottle of children's once in VA when we were all miserably sick from a cold because that was just too much to buy at one time (the only time that YEAR I'd tried to buy it, mind you). Yet, deadly weapon? No registry, no limits. This seems entirely unreasonable to me on so many levels.

Neither cars nor Sudafed are specifically called out in the Constitution.  And you don't have to register a car unless you want to drive it on taxpayer funded roads... no clear nexus to gun registration there.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wexler on February 21, 2018, 04:57:58 PM
I don't understand why it's considered unreasonable to have a gun registry. We register cars. Hell, I can't even buy psuedophedrine anymore without being logged into a system to make sure I'm not buying too much of it. I was barred from buying one box of adult Sudafed and one bottle of children's once in VA when we were all miserably sick from a cold because that was just too much to buy at one time (the only time that YEAR I'd tried to buy it, mind you). Yet, deadly weapon? No registry, no limits. This seems entirely unreasonable to me on so many levels.

Neither cars nor Sudafed are specifically called out in the Constitution.  And you don't have to register a car unless you want to drive it on taxpayer funded roads... no clear nexus to gun registration there.

But you have to register to exercise your constitutional right to vote.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 21, 2018, 07:32:07 PM
Do you get what I'm saying?  If gun advocates have a solution that will stop this from happening lets hear it?  Because where I'm at, I've heard the whinging for decades about how it can't be stopped without trampling the rights of legal owners and I'm sorta like...fuck it...lets change the constitution and trample those rights.  I no longer give a shit about your rights, you've had twenty years to fix this at least and near as I can tell you've done fuck all, so, yea, lets take all your guns away.  All I hear whenever the subject comes up is what's wrong with everyone else's ideas.  Nothing is not an acceptable path forward.

I'm prepared to let the gun rights activists lead us to progress, that's cool.  I don't understand guns?  Sure, fuck it, lets go with that.  You fix it then.  But if it doesn't work we're taking away your guns.  Clock is ticking.

Yeah, pretty much this.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on February 21, 2018, 08:37:33 PM
I don't understand why it's considered unreasonable to have a gun registry. We register cars. Hell, I can't even buy psuedophedrine anymore without being logged into a system to make sure I'm not buying too much of it. I was barred from buying one box of adult Sudafed and one bottle of children's once in VA when we were all miserably sick from a cold because that was just too much to buy at one time (the only time that YEAR I'd tried to buy it, mind you). Yet, deadly weapon? No registry, no limits. This seems entirely unreasonable to me on so many levels.

Neither cars nor Sudafed are specifically called out in the Constitution.  And you don't have to register a car unless you want to drive it on taxpayer funded roads... no clear nexus to gun registration there.

Okay, this wins for dumbest argument against any kind of gun law I've heard yet. Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it proclaim all guns should be available for all with no registry period. It actually says something about militias. I don't see any of you forming militias. Pretty sure that Supreme Court decision also said that while the right to have a gun is protected, it does not mean without limits.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on February 21, 2018, 08:44:59 PM
Do you get what I'm saying?  If gun advocates have a solution that will stop this from happening lets hear it?  Because where I'm at, I've heard the whinging for decades about how it can't be stopped without trampling the rights of legal owners and I'm sorta like...fuck it...lets change the constitution and trample those rights.  I no longer give a shit about your rights, you've had twenty years to fix this at least and near as I can tell you've done fuck all, so, yea, lets take all your guns away.  All I hear whenever the subject comes up is what's wrong with everyone else's ideas.  Nothing is not an acceptable path forward.

I'm prepared to let the gun rights activists lead us to progress, that's cool.  I don't understand guns?  Sure, fuck it, lets go with that.  You fix it then.  But if it doesn't work we're taking away your guns.  Clock is ticking.

Yeah, pretty much this.

Yes, yes, yes!!! I've never been against guns, and we've even come close to buying one. My husband is military and well trained. We ultimately decided that with young kids in the house, it was too risky for now. I'm at the point, though, that I'm so sick of hearing "nothing works, so let's not try at all so my life isn't impacted (fuck yours and everyone else)" that I am totally down with a ban at this point. Don't care in the least. So you guys need to move your asses and change SOMETHING if you care about your arsenals.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wexler on February 21, 2018, 10:26:43 PM
None of our enthusiastic gun supporters has any thoughts on why we can't have a national gun registry if it's OK to keep a registry of voters?

Has there been any chatter about the Florida gag law (NRA-supported) banning doctors from asking about guns that was in effect until very recently? I know that if I were a Florida voter, I'd be pretty interested to know which of my representatives voted to ban doctors, like the ones treating the shooter, from asking about guns in the home. 

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/155/Vote/HouseVote_h0155c2292.PDF

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/155/Vote/SenateVote_h0155c2004.PDF
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: SharkStomper on February 22, 2018, 06:20:49 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 22, 2018, 06:36:40 AM
Maybe we need to add an Amendment extending due process rules to non-government entities. Thus you would have a Constitutional right to due process before being deprived of your life by anyone, not just government. Yes, I realize homicide is generally illegal, but it's not in the Constitution. Once human life and guns are on equal Constitutional footing, then we can have a debate about rules.

/sortofsarcasticbutnotreally
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PoutineLover on February 22, 2018, 07:14:02 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 22, 2018, 07:56:29 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Exactly.

I read this in the Post this morning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/02/22/why-i-will-never-carry-a-gun-in-my-classroom/?utm_term=.22e1daed5745
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 22, 2018, 08:12:01 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.

I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.

I tried to lay it out in the comment you quoted, but obviously didn't do a good job.  Let me try to break it down again.  Basically, we have three variables:
Kms = Kids currently killed/hurt in mass shootings
Ka = Kids killed/hurt in increased firearms accidents at school after arming teachers
Kpat = Kids prevented from being killed/hurt by arming teachers


The assumptions being made when advocating for guns in the classroom:
Kms > Ka: There are more kids killed/injured in mass shootings than would be killed/injured by introducing guns into the classroom
Kpat > 0 : Arming teachers will actually reduce the number of kids killed/injured in mass shootings
Kms - Kpat < Ka : The number of deaths/injuries prevented by arming teachers will outweigh the number of deaths/injuries introduced by arming teachers.

We know that:
Ka > 0 : Currently teachers are not allowed to have guns, so there is no chance for gun accidents to happen.  In the general population, gun accidents do happen (although not at high percentages).  It is reasonable to infer that gun accidents will happen at a non-zero rate after introducing guns into the classroom.


Nobody has given evidence beyond a gut feeling that any of advocacy assumptions are true.  We can reasonably infer that gun accidents will happen because people make mistakes.  Therefore implementing this plan carries greater risk than many of the other ideas being discussed (that do not include an increased threat to children).

There are additionally a number of other potential issues to consider:
- Will young black children be shot more often by teachers with guns in the same way that black men are shot more often by police?
- Will carrying in the class disproportionately negatively impact those who live in poor neighbourhoods . . . even though school shootings happen across income ranges?
- Will the climate of increasing weaponization in classroom setting actually instigate increased school shootings?
- Will enough teachers choose to carry to make a difference anyway?


For the record, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea  . . . but I would prefer at least to have data showing that there is value in the suggestion before risking kids lives.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 22, 2018, 08:15:02 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Exactly.

I read this in the Post this morning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/02/22/why-i-will-never-carry-a-gun-in-my-classroom/?utm_term=.22e1daed5745

That article is a crock of shit and the author comes off as hysterical (in the literal sense).  I know people have used a lot of short hand and you can probalby find somebody on the internet arguing for anything and everything, but nobody is trying to draft teachers into the security guard or law enforcement professions.

Some people just think it would make schools slightly less appealing as soft targets if potential school shooters had to at least consider the fact that teachers and/or administrators might be carrying.   

I really doubt more than a very small minority of teachers would want to carry.  I certainly wouldn't.  I don't carry now, even though it would be much less stressful for me to carry than a teacher and even though I probably should at least occasionally, because I'm just too lazy to deal with the hassle for such a remote risk. 

But I do think teachers should be allowed to carry, if they want to and if they have gone through some required training.  People carry all over the place now with very few incidents.  Very few teachers would take advantage of it and it's somewhat ridiculous to prohibit them from carrying while also not providing adequate security. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: SharkStomper on February 22, 2018, 08:21:52 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Your opinion is noted.  I'm not sure what you base it on since there seems to be little in the way of available data or statistics. 

We have allowed pilots to be armed since 2001 and as far as I can tell there's only been 1 reported AD.  Unfortunately, there are no statistics on this either since the numbers of armed pilots is classified by the government.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: SharkStomper on February 22, 2018, 08:32:19 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.

I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.

I tried to lay it out in the comment you quoted, but obviously didn't do a good job.  Let me try to break it down again.  Basically, we have three variables:
Kms = Kids currently killed/hurt in mass shootings
Ka = Kids killed/hurt in increased firearms accidents at school after arming teachers
Kpat = Kids prevented from being killed/hurt by arming teachers


The assumptions being made when advocating for guns in the classroom:
Kms > Ka: There are more kids killed/injured in mass shootings than would be killed/injured by introducing guns into the classroom
Kpat > 0 : Arming teachers will actually reduce the number of kids killed/injured in mass shootings
Kms - Kpat < Ka : The number of deaths/injuries prevented by arming teachers will outweigh the number of deaths/injuries introduced by arming teachers.

We know that:
Ka > 0 : Currently teachers are not allowed to have guns, so there is no chance for gun accidents to happen.  In the general population, gun accidents do happen (although not at high percentages).  It is reasonable to infer that gun accidents will happen at a non-zero rate after introducing guns into the classroom.


Nobody has given evidence beyond a gut feeling that any of advocacy assumptions are true.  We can reasonably infer that gun accidents will happen because people make mistakes.  Therefore implementing this plan carries greater risk than many of the other ideas being discussed (that do not include an increased threat to children).

There are additionally a number of other potential issues to consider:
- Will young black children be shot more often by teachers with guns in the same way that black men are shot more often by police?
- Will carrying in the class disproportionately negatively impact those who live in poor neighbourhoods . . . even though school shootings happen across income ranges?
- Will the climate of increasing weaponization in classroom setting actually instigate increased school shootings?
- Will enough teachers choose to carry to make a difference anyway?


For the record, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea  . . . but I would prefer at least to have data showing that there is value in the suggestion before risking kids lives.

That seems like a reasonable position.  The question to me seems to be are we prepared to accept an occasional (unknown number) of AD's in exchange for a possible (unknown number) of reduced mass killings.

I submit that as a society we (The US) already have accepted the risk/reward of citizens carrying to defend themselves.  The only question is do we continue that protection to schools.


Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PoutineLover on February 22, 2018, 08:43:22 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Your opinion is noted.  I'm not sure what you base it on since there seems to be little in the way of available data or statistics. 

We have allowed pilots to be armed since 2001 and as far as I can tell there's only been 1 reported AD.  Unfortunately, there are no statistics on this either since the numbers of armed pilots is classified by the government.
I base it on the fact that I was a student in school, and the thought of my teachers carrying guns in the classroom is horrifying. I will have kids one day, and I don't want them to go to schools where their teachers have hidden guns just in case some monster comes in spraying bullets everywhere. I also want to prevent that monster from getting his hands on those weapons of mass destruction.
I'm so grateful for the fact that I live in Canada where this kind of insanity is much more rare, but I feel for the millions of parents who live in fear of their children being shot down in a place that should be safe. Why is it that an 18 year old can't buy a legal drink but they can buy a legal gun? Why is it that someone who has been reported dozens of times for violence and threats can buy a gun? Why can someone who has been accused or convicted of domestic violence can legally possess a gun? Why is anyone opposed to limiting access to guns to people who have clear patterns of abusive and violent behaviour? It's not my country, so I can't do anything about it, but I just fail to comprehend the mindset that seems to prevail among unconditional supporters of the second amendment.
I'm not opposed to safe gun ownership, but to me that means something more like the system we have in Canada. You have to take a class, you have to pass a background check, and you have to store guns safely, locked up away from the bullets (as far as I understand, there might be slight details I'm missing). Guns are for target shooting and hunting, and must be handled like the dangerous weapons they are.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 22, 2018, 08:45:29 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Exactly.

I read this in the Post this morning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/02/22/why-i-will-never-carry-a-gun-in-my-classroom/?utm_term=.22e1daed5745

That article is a crock of shit and the author comes off as hysterical (in the literal sense).  I know people have used a lot of short hand and you can probalby find somebody on the internet arguing for anything and everything, but nobody is trying to draft teachers into the security guard or law enforcement professions.

Some people just think it would make schools slightly less appealing as soft targets if potential school shooters had to at least consider the fact that teachers and/or administrators might be carrying.   

I really doubt more than a very small minority of teachers would want to carry.  I certainly wouldn't.  I don't carry now, even though it would be much less stressful for me to carry than a teacher and even though I probably should at least occasionally, because I'm just too lazy to deal with the hassle for such a remote risk. 

But I do think teachers should be allowed to carry, if they want to and if they have gone through some required training.  People carry all over the place now with very few incidents.  Very few teachers would take advantage of it and it's somewhat ridiculous to prohibit them from carrying while also not providing adequate security.

Ah, “hysterical.” That age-old dog-whistle word.

Can you please explain the literal definition of hysteria, and then cite where the author (female, of course) exhibits that behavior?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 22, 2018, 08:47:56 AM
Some people just think it would make schools slightly less appealing as soft targets if potential school shooters had to at least consider the fact that teachers and/or administrators might be carrying.   

I really doubt more than a very small minority of teachers would want to carry.  I certainly wouldn't.  I don't carry now, even though it would be much less stressful for me to carry than a teacher and even though I probably should at least occasionally, because I'm just too lazy to deal with the hassle for such a remote risk. 

But I do think teachers should be allowed to carry, if they want to and if they have gone through some required training.  People carry all over the place now with very few incidents.  Very few teachers would take advantage of it and it's somewhat ridiculous to prohibit them from carrying while also not providing adequate security.

We've kind of let the assertion that schools are "soft targets" fly by without any further examination.

I think it's a little bit misleading in the sense that people who attack schools do not do so because it's easier than other options (typical building access protocols make it harder). It ignores the fact that the attackers often have a kind of connection to the school, and target it for psychosocial reasons rather than being gun-free zones. School shootings are unlike like the Aurora, CO or Las Vegas attacks, where the attacker was seeking out places where it would be easy to cause a high number of casualties. Also worth noting that in both of those attacks, concealed carry holders failed to neutralize the attacker. Police officials often criticize proposals like this because they don't want to walk into a firefight not knowing who's trying to defend themselves or others, and who's trying to kill lots of innocent people.

We can debate whether additional barriers to school shootings would shift the attacks to other venues (malls, movies theaters, concerts, etc.). I don't really know one way or the other. I think that would be equally bad, and perhaps worse from a casualty standpoint because of weaker responses for random strangers in a place where they don't spend half their time. At least at school, the victims are familiar with their surroundings, and most schools drill for the situation.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: SharkStomper on February 22, 2018, 09:01:26 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.



I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Your opinion is noted.  I'm not sure what you base it on since there seems to be little in the way of available data or statistics. 

We have allowed pilots to be armed since 2001 and as far as I can tell there's only been 1 reported AD.  Unfortunately, there are no statistics on this either since the numbers of armed pilots is classified by the government.
I base it on the fact that I was a student in school, and the thought of my teachers carrying guns in the classroom is horrifying. I will have kids one day, and I don't want them to go to schools where their teachers have hidden guns just in case some monster comes in spraying bullets everywhere. I also want to prevent that monster from getting his hands on those weapons of mass destruction.
I'm so grateful for the fact that I live in Canada where this kind of insanity is much more rare, but I feel for the millions of parents who live in fear of their children being shot down in a place that should be safe. Why is it that an 18 year old can't buy a legal drink but they can buy a legal gun? Why is it that someone who has been reported dozens of times for violence and threats can buy a gun? Why can someone who has been accused or convicted of domestic violence can legally possess a gun? Why is anyone opposed to limiting access to guns to people who have clear patterns of abusive and violent behaviour? It's not my country, so I can't do anything about it, but I just fail to comprehend the mindset that seems to prevail among unconditional supporters of the second amendment.
I'm not opposed to safe gun ownership, but to me that means something more like the system we have in Canada. You have to take a class, you have to pass a background check, and you have to store guns safely, locked up away from the bullets (as far as I understand, there might be slight details I'm missing). Guns are for target shooting and hunting, and must be handled like the dangerous weapons they are.

I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from, but can we please put the fallacy regarding domestic violence one to bed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

It's illegal for a person convicted of domestic violence or in some cases merely under a restraining order to purchase or possess a firearm.

People with patterns of abusive and violent behavior should not have access to guns.  I'm not sure what that's referring to unless it's a continuation of the fallacy that people convicted of domestic violence can legally purchase or possess firearms.  Maybe you're referring to the FBI in this case that was criminally negligent (IMO) of failing to investigate the shooter, in that we would be in agreement.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dabnasty on February 22, 2018, 09:02:37 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Exactly.

I read this in the Post this morning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/02/22/why-i-will-never-carry-a-gun-in-my-classroom/?utm_term=.22e1daed5745

That article is a crock of shit and the author comes off as hysterical (in the literal sense).  I know people have used a lot of short hand and you can probalby find somebody on the internet arguing for anything and everything, but nobody is trying to draft teachers into the security guard or law enforcement professions.

Some people just think it would make schools slightly less appealing as soft targets if potential school shooters had to at least consider the fact that teachers and/or administrators might be carrying.   

I really doubt more than a very small minority of teachers would want to carry.  I certainly wouldn't.  I don't carry now, even though it would be much less stressful for me to carry than a teacher and even though I probably should at least occasionally, because I'm just too lazy to deal with the hassle for such a remote risk. 

But I do think teachers should be allowed to carry, if they want to and if they have gone through some required training.  People carry all over the place now with very few incidents.  Very few teachers would take advantage of it and it's somewhat ridiculous to prohibit them from carrying while also not providing adequate security.
I don't entirely agree with the article but there's nothing hysterical about the author's point of view or tone. She speaks with the assumption that teacher's would be required or encouraged to carry while some people are only suggesting it as an option but if that's what she is arguing against I think she made her point clearly.

I actually expected more emotion and imagery when I clicked on the article because of your description and the fact that articles like that do exist, but this was not one of them.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PoutineLover on February 22, 2018, 09:09:44 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.



I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Your opinion is noted.  I'm not sure what you base it on since there seems to be little in the way of available data or statistics. 

We have allowed pilots to be armed since 2001 and as far as I can tell there's only been 1 reported AD.  Unfortunately, there are no statistics on this either since the numbers of armed pilots is classified by the government.
I base it on the fact that I was a student in school, and the thought of my teachers carrying guns in the classroom is horrifying. I will have kids one day, and I don't want them to go to schools where their teachers have hidden guns just in case some monster comes in spraying bullets everywhere. I also want to prevent that monster from getting his hands on those weapons of mass destruction.
I'm so grateful for the fact that I live in Canada where this kind of insanity is much more rare, but I feel for the millions of parents who live in fear of their children being shot down in a place that should be safe. Why is it that an 18 year old can't buy a legal drink but they can buy a legal gun? Why is it that someone who has been reported dozens of times for violence and threats can buy a gun? Why can someone who has been accused or convicted of domestic violence can legally possess a gun? Why is anyone opposed to limiting access to guns to people who have clear patterns of abusive and violent behaviour? It's not my country, so I can't do anything about it, but I just fail to comprehend the mindset that seems to prevail among unconditional supporters of the second amendment.
I'm not opposed to safe gun ownership, but to me that means something more like the system we have in Canada. You have to take a class, you have to pass a background check, and you have to store guns safely, locked up away from the bullets (as far as I understand, there might be slight details I'm missing). Guns are for target shooting and hunting, and must be handled like the dangerous weapons they are.

I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from, but can we please put the fallacy regarding domestic violence one to bed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

It's illegal for a person convicted of domestic violence or in some cases merely under a restraining order to purchase or possess a firearm.

People with patterns of abusive and violent behavior should not have access to guns.  I'm not sure what that's referring to unless it's a continuation of the fallacy that people convicted of domestic violence can legally purchase or possess firearms.  Maybe you're referring to the FBI in this case that was criminally negligent (IMO) of failing to investigate the shooter, in that we would be in agreement.

Well the system barring them from ownership doesn't seem to be working very well:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/6/16612410/domestic-gun-violence-mass-shootings
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/us/politics/domestic-abuse-guns-texas-air-force.html
The background check system needs to be more robust and include all reported incidents, and needs to apply to all transfers of guns, including private sales, to be effective.
And yes, the FBI probably should have done a better job preventing the latest shooter from getting a gun, but I also brought up the fact that an 18 year old is allowed to buy a gun but not allowed to buy a drink, and that's fucked up.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 22, 2018, 09:14:55 AM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/politics/cnn-town-hall-full-video-transcript/index.html

These kids are so damn inspiring.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 22, 2018, 09:30:07 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.



I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Your opinion is noted.  I'm not sure what you base it on since there seems to be little in the way of available data or statistics. 

We have allowed pilots to be armed since 2001 and as far as I can tell there's only been 1 reported AD.  Unfortunately, there are no statistics on this either since the numbers of armed pilots is classified by the government.
I base it on the fact that I was a student in school, and the thought of my teachers carrying guns in the classroom is horrifying. I will have kids one day, and I don't want them to go to schools where their teachers have hidden guns just in case some monster comes in spraying bullets everywhere. I also want to prevent that monster from getting his hands on those weapons of mass destruction.
I'm so grateful for the fact that I live in Canada where this kind of insanity is much more rare, but I feel for the millions of parents who live in fear of their children being shot down in a place that should be safe. Why is it that an 18 year old can't buy a legal drink but they can buy a legal gun? Why is it that someone who has been reported dozens of times for violence and threats can buy a gun? Why can someone who has been accused or convicted of domestic violence can legally possess a gun? Why is anyone opposed to limiting access to guns to people who have clear patterns of abusive and violent behaviour? It's not my country, so I can't do anything about it, but I just fail to comprehend the mindset that seems to prevail among unconditional supporters of the second amendment.
I'm not opposed to safe gun ownership, but to me that means something more like the system we have in Canada. You have to take a class, you have to pass a background check, and you have to store guns safely, locked up away from the bullets (as far as I understand, there might be slight details I'm missing). Guns are for target shooting and hunting, and must be handled like the dangerous weapons they are.

I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from, but can we please put the fallacy regarding domestic violence one to bed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

It's illegal for a person convicted of domestic violence or in some cases merely under a restraining order to purchase or possess a firearm.

People with patterns of abusive and violent behavior should not have access to guns.  I'm not sure what that's referring to unless it's a continuation of the fallacy that people convicted of domestic violence can legally purchase or possess firearms.  Maybe you're referring to the FBI in this case that was criminally negligent (IMO) of failing to investigate the shooter, in that we would be in agreement.

Well the system barring them from ownership doesn't seem to be working very well:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/6/16612410/domestic-gun-violence-mass-shootings
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/us/politics/domestic-abuse-guns-texas-air-force.html
The background check system needs to be more robust and include all reported incidents, and needs to apply to all transfers of guns, including private sales, to be effective.
And yes, the FBI probably should have done a better job preventing the latest shooter from getting a gun, but I also brought up the fact that an 18 year old is allowed to buy a gun but not allowed to buy a drink, and that's fucked up.

One of the reasons for a national gun registry would be to ensure that the system will work much better to prevent those who aren't supposed to have guns from having them.

If all your guns are registered to your name, then you commit domestic assault we wouldn't have to rely on the honor system for you to turn them in.  We would know exactly what weapons you have.

We wouldn't have to rely on the honor system if you then go to buy from a private seller . . . because when ownership was transferred to your name it would be red flagged and the sale would be prevented.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Peter Parker on February 22, 2018, 09:31:19 AM
I just watched the NRA at CPAC.  What a disgusting group of individuals--basically incapable and/unwilling to take any ownership in this debate.  They threw law enforcement under the bus--and basically encourage anarchy within the ranks of the FBI/law enforcement by suggesting rank and file members should overthrow any leader that has a view contrary to that of the NRA.

The NRA suggests that the school tragedies were a result of laws, currently on the books, were not enforced.  Ummm, yeah, Dipshits--that's how crimes are committed:  People break laws.   People shoot people.  Laws are broken.  No shit, Sherlock.  That's how all crimes are committed.  That's why they are called criminals, killers, insane.  Because they don't follow laws. 

The NRA suggest that it's not their problem that we are not protecting our children and adult citizens--it is a failure of politicians and communities from spending MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to arm teachers, to provide metal detectors, to fortify schools, to limit the freedoms of students.  Why must we pay these costs so you can get an erection holding an AR-15?  Why does all my medical records and the possibility of being unlawfully detained (in violation of the 4th Amend) be allowed so you can stroke yourself with your high-capacity weapon?  Why is my freedom of movement curtailed so you play big-boy with your firearm?

How anyone can contribute to that organization is beyond me.  And if that is who is on the the other side--a group that is unwilling to show compromise and make the choice "either/or" then I may need to move further to the left in my response.  I used to think there might be common ground.  Now I'm not so sure.

And if was a politician, on the dole of the NRA, and saw what I just witnessed on TV, then I'd be embarrassed to be associated with a lunatic group.  So I started doing what I did yesterday--I started going down the list (above) of congressmen/women that took money from the NRA and left a message of what I thought.

I've changed my tune after this latest (and not the last) tragedy--I no longer "hope and pray" for the victims  I now "hope and pray" for our country, call our congress people, march on the streets (March For Our Lives 3/24/2018), provide money where i can, and VOTE.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: SharkStomper on February 22, 2018, 09:31:47 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.



I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Your opinion is noted.  I'm not sure what you base it on since there seems to be little in the way of available data or statistics. 

We have allowed pilots to be armed since 2001 and as far as I can tell there's only been 1 reported AD.  Unfortunately, there are no statistics on this either since the numbers of armed pilots is classified by the government.
I base it on the fact that I was a student in school, and the thought of my teachers carrying guns in the classroom is horrifying. I will have kids one day, and I don't want them to go to schools where their teachers have hidden guns just in case some monster comes in spraying bullets everywhere. I also want to prevent that monster from getting his hands on those weapons of mass destruction.
I'm so grateful for the fact that I live in Canada where this kind of insanity is much more rare, but I feel for the millions of parents who live in fear of their children being shot down in a place that should be safe. Why is it that an 18 year old can't buy a legal drink but they can buy a legal gun? Why is it that someone who has been reported dozens of times for violence and threats can buy a gun? Why can someone who has been accused or convicted of domestic violence can legally possess a gun? Why is anyone opposed to limiting access to guns to people who have clear patterns of abusive and violent behaviour? It's not my country, so I can't do anything about it, but I just fail to comprehend the mindset that seems to prevail among unconditional supporters of the second amendment.
I'm not opposed to safe gun ownership, but to me that means something more like the system we have in Canada. You have to take a class, you have to pass a background check, and you have to store guns safely, locked up away from the bullets (as far as I understand, there might be slight details I'm missing). Guns are for target shooting and hunting, and must be handled like the dangerous weapons they are.

I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from, but can we please put the fallacy regarding domestic violence one to bed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

It's illegal for a person convicted of domestic violence or in some cases merely under a restraining order to purchase or possess a firearm.

People with patterns of abusive and violent behavior should not have access to guns.  I'm not sure what that's referring to unless it's a continuation of the fallacy that people convicted of domestic violence can legally purchase or possess firearms.  Maybe you're referring to the FBI in this case that was criminally negligent (IMO) of failing to investigate the shooter, in that we would be in agreement.

Well the system barring them from ownership doesn't seem to be working very well:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/6/16612410/domestic-gun-violence-mass-shootings
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/us/politics/domestic-abuse-guns-texas-air-force.html
The background check system needs to be more robust and include all reported incidents, and needs to apply to all transfers of guns, including private sales, to be effective.
And yes, the FBI probably should have done a better job preventing the latest shooter from getting a gun, but I also brought up the fact that an 18 year old is allowed to buy a gun but not allowed to buy a drink, and that's fucked up.

Yeah the Air Force admitted that they failed to report his domestic violence record to civilian authorities.  Again an example of criminal negligence by a government agency, but I'm not sure what background check system would catch something that's not reported properly. 

I'd love to have access to the NICS system when I wanted to sell a gun.  I suspect privacy laws have something to do with the fact that I don't freely have that access, but that's just my suspicion.  Can you provide examples of private party sales that lead to mass shootings?  I'm sure they exist, and would be interested to see the statistics on that.

Age of legal consent is a different rabbit hole that I don't care to run down, you can take that up with someone else.  I merely want to correct fallacies that people throw around in this debate.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 22, 2018, 09:32:57 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Exactly.

I read this in the Post this morning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/02/22/why-i-will-never-carry-a-gun-in-my-classroom/?utm_term=.22e1daed5745

That article is a crock of shit and the author comes off as hysterical (in the literal sense).  I know people have used a lot of short hand and you can probalby find somebody on the internet arguing for anything and everything, but nobody is trying to draft teachers into the security guard or law enforcement professions.

Some people just think it would make schools slightly less appealing as soft targets if potential school shooters had to at least consider the fact that teachers and/or administrators might be carrying.   

I really doubt more than a very small minority of teachers would want to carry.  I certainly wouldn't.  I don't carry now, even though it would be much less stressful for me to carry than a teacher and even though I probably should at least occasionally, because I'm just too lazy to deal with the hassle for such a remote risk. 

But I do think teachers should be allowed to carry, if they want to and if they have gone through some required training.  People carry all over the place now with very few incidents.  Very few teachers would take advantage of it and it's somewhat ridiculous to prohibit them from carrying while also not providing adequate security.

Ah, “hysterical.” That age-old dog-whistle word.

Can you please explain the literal definition of hysteria, and then cite where the author (female, of course) exhibits that behavior?

deriving from or affected by uncontrolled extreme emotion.

synonyms:   overwrought, overemotional, out of control, frenzied, frantic, wild, feverish, crazed;

She goes from a proposal that some teachers be allowed to carry to fretting about being obligated to carry, obligated to shoot someone, potentially civilly liable if she doesn't, and also being "drafted into an ideological war".  Assuming the author is not being disingenuous and trying to mislead the reader, you explain how that train of thought leaves the station without the author being overcome by emotion. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 22, 2018, 09:41:51 AM
Yeah the Air Force admitted that they failed to report his domestic violence record to civilian authorities.  Again an example of criminal negligence by a government agency, but I'm not sure what background check system would catch something that's not reported properly. 

Yes, this is a perfectly valid point.  Reporting regarding who can and can't own guns needs to be made simple, consistent, and easily available.  That's one of the benefits of a single federal gun registry . . . it would simply reporting by all agencies, reducing chance for errors.  Right now there are a mishmash of different laws and databases, and often things fall through the cracks.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on February 22, 2018, 09:52:05 AM
Do you get what I'm saying?  If gun advocates have a solution that will stop this from happening lets hear it?  Because where I'm at, I've heard the whinging for decades about how it can't be stopped without trampling the rights of legal owners and I'm sorta like...fuck it...lets change the constitution and trample those rights.  I no longer give a shit about your rights, you've had twenty years to fix this at least and near as I can tell you've done fuck all, so, yea, lets take all your guns away.  All I hear whenever the subject comes up is what's wrong with everyone else's ideas.  Nothing is not an acceptable path forward.

I'm prepared to let the gun rights activists lead us to progress, that's cool.  I don't understand guns?  Sure, fuck it, lets go with that.  You fix it then.  But if it doesn't work we're taking away your guns.  Clock is ticking.

Yeah, pretty much this.

I have to laugh when I read tough talk like this. If you could do a total ban, you would have done it a long time ago. The fact is, the gun control rhetoric has failed, gun rights continue to advance, and I don't see that changing any time soon. This isn't even about the hard core pro-gun people, the gun control crowd has failed to convince very many of the moderates either.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 22, 2018, 09:54:53 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWnD4UOW4AAUspX.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWnD4Q-W4AEev2R.jpg)

The NRA lobbied for - and got passed - a regulation that requires the records of a background check to be destroyed after 24 hours, which means the NICS system can NEVER BE AUDITED.  If someone is improperly approved?  Federal agencies can never follow up.

Guess what the GAO found?  97% of those who were improperly approved can evade detection thanks tot he 24-hour rule.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on February 22, 2018, 09:55:51 AM
None of our enthusiastic gun supporters has any thoughts on why we can't have a national gun registry if it's OK to keep a registry of voters?

Has there been any chatter about the Florida gag law (NRA-supported) banning doctors from asking about guns that was in effect until very recently? I know that if I were a Florida voter, I'd be pretty interested to know which of my representatives voted to ban doctors, like the ones treating the shooter, from asking about guns in the home. 

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/155/Vote/HouseVote_h0155c2292.PDF

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/155/Vote/SenateVote_h0155c2004.PDF

Because the right to vote by its very nature implies a government administration to facilitate it. Really, if you want to extend this to other rights, like the 2A, should we require you to report your free speech and register your religion?

Maybe there would be some gun control measures in place if it's proponents weren't so disingenuous.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 22, 2018, 09:56:06 AM
I have to laugh when I read tough talk like this. If you could do a total ban, you would have done it a long time ago. The fact is, the gun control rhetoric has failed, gun rights continue to advance, and I don't see that changing any time soon. This isn't even about the hard core pro-gun people, the gun control crowd has failed to convince very many of the moderates either.

False.

8 proposals with >60% public support.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWCI9PwVAAUUHNN.jpg)

Congress won't enact a single one.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 22, 2018, 09:58:41 AM
Because the right to vote by its very nature implies a government administration to facilitate it. Really, if you want to extend this to other rights, like the 2A, should we require you to report your free speech and register your religion?

Maybe there would be some gun control measures in place if it's proponents weren't so disingenuous.

Must register for:
-property ownership
-marriage
-automobile
-voting
-government benefits

No registration needed:
-guns

Give me a ****ing break.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on February 22, 2018, 10:03:01 AM
Because the right to vote by its very nature implies a government administration to facilitate it. Really, if you want to extend this to other rights, like the 2A, should we require you to report your free speech and register your religion?

Maybe there would be some gun control measures in place if it's proponents weren't so disingenuous.

Must register for:
-property ownership
-marriage
-automobile
-voting
-government benefits

No registration needed:
-guns

Give me a ****ing break.

You don't need to register for any of those things unless you want the government benefits associated with them (standing to sue over property disputes, breach of marriage contract, etc). And I already addressed voting.

I suppose your argument might hold water if gun owners were asking the government to facilitate the 2A by actually providing guns and training to people.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on February 22, 2018, 10:04:00 AM
I have to laugh when I read tough talk like this. If you could do a total ban, you would have done it a long time ago. The fact is, the gun control rhetoric has failed, gun rights continue to advance, and I don't see that changing any time soon. This isn't even about the hard core pro-gun people, the gun control crowd has failed to convince very many of the moderates either.

False.

8 proposals with >60% public support.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWCI9PwVAAUUHNN.jpg)

Congress won't enact a single one.

Better get them to the ballot box to vote on it then... those polls don't mean much until then.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 22, 2018, 10:04:11 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Exactly.

I read this in the Post this morning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/02/22/why-i-will-never-carry-a-gun-in-my-classroom/?utm_term=.22e1daed5745

That article is a crock of shit and the author comes off as hysterical (in the literal sense).  I know people have used a lot of short hand and you can probalby find somebody on the internet arguing for anything and everything, but nobody is trying to draft teachers into the security guard or law enforcement professions.

Some people just think it would make schools slightly less appealing as soft targets if potential school shooters had to at least consider the fact that teachers and/or administrators might be carrying.   

I really doubt more than a very small minority of teachers would want to carry.  I certainly wouldn't.  I don't carry now, even though it would be much less stressful for me to carry than a teacher and even though I probably should at least occasionally, because I'm just too lazy to deal with the hassle for such a remote risk. 

But I do think teachers should be allowed to carry, if they want to and if they have gone through some required training.  People carry all over the place now with very few incidents.  Very few teachers would take advantage of it and it's somewhat ridiculous to prohibit them from carrying while also not providing adequate security.

Ah, “hysterical.” That age-old dog-whistle word.

Can you please explain the literal definition of hysteria, and then cite where the author (female, of course) exhibits that behavior?

deriving from or affected by uncontrolled extreme emotion.

synonyms:   overwrought, overemotional, out of control, frenzied, frantic, wild, feverish, crazed;

She goes from a proposal that some teachers be allowed to carry to fretting about being obligated to carry, obligated to shoot someone, potentially civilly liable if she doesn't, and also being "drafted into an ideological war".  Assuming the author is not being disingenuous and trying to mislead the reader, you explain how that train of thought leaves the station without the author being overcome by emotion.

That's quite subjective, isn't it?

Out of control? Frenzied? Frantic? Wild? Feverish? Crazed?

Wow. She's clearly ready for the loony bin.

Unless...

a psychological disorder (not now regarded as a single definite condition) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior. The term has a controversial history as it was formerly regarded as a disease specific to women. (dictionary.com)

... you're speaking FIGURATIVELY, not literally...

And the woman's lived experience and perspective is something you merely want to discredit.

Edit: Here’s another perspective. Is this guy “hysterical,” too?

https://www.charlottefive.com/arming-teachers/
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 22, 2018, 10:08:01 AM
Because the right to vote by its very nature implies a government administration to facilitate it. Really, if you want to extend this to other rights, like the 2A, should we require you to report your free speech and register your religion?

Maybe there would be some gun control measures in place if it's proponents weren't so disingenuous.

Must register for:
-property ownership
-marriage
-automobile
-voting
-government benefits

No registration needed:
-guns

Give me a ****ing break.

You don't need to register for any of those things unless you want the government benefits associated with them (standing to sue over property disputes, breach of marriage contract, etc). And I already addressed voting.

When you buy property it's automatically registered with your municipal government for tax purposes, is it not?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on February 22, 2018, 10:10:31 AM
Because the right to vote by its very nature implies a government administration to facilitate it. Really, if you want to extend this to other rights, like the 2A, should we require you to report your free speech and register your religion?

Maybe there would be some gun control measures in place if it's proponents weren't so disingenuous.

Must register for:
-property ownership
-marriage
-automobile
-voting
-government benefits

No registration needed:
-guns

Give me a ****ing break.

You don't need to register for any of those things unless you want the government benefits associated with them (standing to sue over property disputes, breach of marriage contract, etc). And I already addressed voting.

When you buy property it's automatically registered with your municipal government for tax purposes, is it not?

Perhaps the way the government treats land ownership should get a second look too. Property taxes and such are also wrong.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 22, 2018, 10:34:05 AM
Because the right to vote by its very nature implies a government administration to facilitate it. Really, if you want to extend this to other rights, like the 2A, should we require you to report your free speech and register your religion?

Maybe there would be some gun control measures in place if it's proponents weren't so disingenuous.

Must register for:
-property ownership
-marriage
-automobile
-voting
-government benefits

No registration needed:
-guns

Give me a ****ing break.

You don't need to register for any of those things unless you want the government benefits associated with them (standing to sue over property disputes, breach of marriage contract, etc). And I already addressed voting.

When you buy property it's automatically registered with your municipal government for tax purposes, is it not?

Perhaps the way the government treats land ownership should get a second look too. Property taxes and such are also wrong.

There are 18 countries on Earth without property taxes.

But said another way, "Well, I got called out on this legitimate point so let me deflect and say that the government is wrong in this case."
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on February 22, 2018, 10:37:19 AM
Because the right to vote by its very nature implies a government administration to facilitate it. Really, if you want to extend this to other rights, like the 2A, should we require you to report your free speech and register your religion?

Maybe there would be some gun control measures in place if it's proponents weren't so disingenuous.

Must register for:
-property ownership
-marriage
-automobile
-voting
-government benefits

No registration needed:
-guns

Give me a ****ing break.

You don't need to register for any of those things unless you want the government benefits associated with them (standing to sue over property disputes, breach of marriage contract, etc). And I already addressed voting.

When you buy property it's automatically registered with your municipal government for tax purposes, is it not?

Perhaps the way the government treats land ownership should get a second look too. Property taxes and such are also wrong.

There are 18 countries on Earth without property taxes.

But said another way, "Well, I got called out on this legitimate point so let me deflect and say that the government is wrong in this case."

It's not a legitimate point at all. You continue dodging my points because you have nothing.

From upthread, I'd really like to see this point addressed.

"I suppose your argument might hold water if gun owners were asking the government to facilitate the 2A by actually providing guns and training to people."
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 22, 2018, 11:42:16 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Exactly.

I read this in the Post this morning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/02/22/why-i-will-never-carry-a-gun-in-my-classroom/?utm_term=.22e1daed5745

That article is a crock of shit and the author comes off as hysterical (in the literal sense).  I know people have used a lot of short hand and you can probalby find somebody on the internet arguing for anything and everything, but nobody is trying to draft teachers into the security guard or law enforcement professions.

Some people just think it would make schools slightly less appealing as soft targets if potential school shooters had to at least consider the fact that teachers and/or administrators might be carrying.   

I really doubt more than a very small minority of teachers would want to carry.  I certainly wouldn't.  I don't carry now, even though it would be much less stressful for me to carry than a teacher and even though I probably should at least occasionally, because I'm just too lazy to deal with the hassle for such a remote risk. 

But I do think teachers should be allowed to carry, if they want to and if they have gone through some required training.  People carry all over the place now with very few incidents.  Very few teachers would take advantage of it and it's somewhat ridiculous to prohibit them from carrying while also not providing adequate security.

Ah, “hysterical.” That age-old dog-whistle word.

Can you please explain the literal definition of hysteria, and then cite where the author (female, of course) exhibits that behavior?

deriving from or affected by uncontrolled extreme emotion.

synonyms:   overwrought, overemotional, out of control, frenzied, frantic, wild, feverish, crazed;

She goes from a proposal that some teachers be allowed to carry to fretting about being obligated to carry, obligated to shoot someone, potentially civilly liable if she doesn't, and also being "drafted into an ideological war".  Assuming the author is not being disingenuous and trying to mislead the reader, you explain how that train of thought leaves the station without the author being overcome by emotion.

That's quite subjective, isn't it?

Out of control? Frenzied? Frantic? Wild? Feverish? Crazed?

Wow. She's clearly ready for the loony bin.

Unless...

a psychological disorder (not now regarded as a single definite condition) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior. The term has a controversial history as it was formerly regarded as a disease specific to women. (dictionary.com)

... you're speaking FIGURATIVELY, not literally...

And the woman's lived experience and perspective is something you merely want to discredit.

Edit: Here’s another perspective. Is this guy “hysterical,” too?

https://www.charlottefive.com/arming-teachers/
Can you really not see the difference between the author making a logical argument, supplemented by his own experiences, against an actual proposal being considered by some, versus the author panicking about being drafted into an ideological war and held civilly liable for a policy that nobody has seriously proposed? 

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 22, 2018, 11:44:56 AM
Unless somebody starts wanting to have a useful conversation about potential solutions that don't include confiscation of 70%+ of the lawful guns in this country, I'm out.

How about this for a solution?

1. Adjust the requirements for obtaining a machine gun to match other restricted weapons (grenade launchers, grenades, etc.).
2. Implement a national concealed carry permit with strict training requirements which can be revoked for negligence/AD (with an appeals process).
3. Provide incentives to allow concealed carry on school campuses and/or allow concealed carry with the new national CC permit.
4. Provide funding for schools to implement safety measures (penetration resistant glass doors, single point of entry, time-lock magnetic doors).
5. Increased funding for mental health treatment and law enforcement (specifically earmarked for increased enforcement of current gun laws).
6. Fund a project to improve gun tech (fingerprint scanners, microstamp bullets, etc) and require it to be on all newly manufactured guns once it's proven to be reasonably reliable.
7. All new guns sold go into a national registry which requires a warrant to search but is easily searchable once a warrant is obtained.
8. The registered owner of a gun is held liable for any damages caused by it unless they can prove that it was properly secured and reported stolen.
9. Require background checks for all gun transfers (with shall issue, timely approval requirements and an appeals process).
10. Provide easy online access to background checks for private sellers.
11. Bar sales to all violent criminals, mentally ill and stalkers (with judicial review and appeals process).
12. Allow the government to impose a delay on firearms purchases by those on the terror watch list/no fly list that can become a permanent ban with judicial review.
13. Impose a one to two week waiting period for all gun purchases (exact time is up for debate).
14. Impose magazine capacity limits (exact number is up for debate).
15. Update the legal definition of a machine gun to be based on firing rate (targeting bump stocks).
16. A generous and voluntary gun buyback program applying to all guns made before the law passed (to remove as many unregistered guns from circulation as possible).
17. Remove restrictions on the government's ability to conduct gun violence research.

I'm sure I missed a few things and of course it would need further fleshing out before being finalized.  But if I were in congress this is the basic outline of the legislation that I would be drafting.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 22, 2018, 11:56:18 AM
Unless somebody starts wanting to have a useful conversation about potential solutions that don't include confiscation of 70%+ of the lawful guns in this country, I'm out.

How about this for a solution?

1. Adjust the requirements for obtaining a machine gun to match other restricted weapons (grenade launchers, grenades, etc.).

Weapons capable of automatic fire are already effectively unobtainable.

The Las Vegas shooter (legally) modified a single-shot rifle that was able to accept high-capacity magazines. It's something worth adding to the list with regular automatic weapons, but the problem is you could 3D print the part.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 22, 2018, 11:58:05 AM
Unless somebody starts wanting to have a useful conversation about potential solutions that don't include confiscation of 70%+ of the lawful guns in this country, I'm out.

How about this for a solution?

1. Adjust the requirements for obtaining a machine gun to match other restricted weapons (grenade launchers, grenades, etc.).
2. Implement a national concealed carry permit with strict training requirements which can be revoked for negligence/AD (with an appeals process).
3. Provide incentives to allow concealed carry on school campuses and/or allow concealed carry with the new national CC permit.
4. Provide funding for schools to implement safety measures (penetration resistant glass doors, single point of entry, time-lock magnetic doors).
5. Increased funding for mental health treatment and law enforcement (specifically earmarked for increased enforcement of current gun laws).
6. Fund a project to improve gun tech (fingerprint scanners, microstamp bullets, etc) and require it to be on all newly manufactured guns once it's proven to be reasonably reliable.
7. All new guns sold go into a national registry which requires a warrant to search but is easily searchable once a warrant is obtained.
8. The registered owner of a gun is held liable for any damages caused by it unless they can prove that it was properly secured and reported stolen.
9. Require background checks for all gun transfers (with shall issue, timely approval requirements and an appeals process).
10. Provide easy online access to background checks for private sellers.
11. Bar sales to all violent criminals, mentally ill and stalkers (with judicial review and appeals process).
12. Allow the government to impose a delay on firearms purchases by those on the terror watch list/no fly list that can become a permanent ban with judicial review.
13. Impose a one to two week waiting period for all gun purchases (exact time is up for debate).
14. Impose magazine capacity limits (exact number is up for debate).
15. Update the legal definition of a machine gun to be based on firing rate (targeting bump stocks).
16. A generous and voluntary gun buyback program applying to all guns made before the law passed (to remove as many unregistered guns from circulation as possible).
17. Remove restrictions on the government's ability to conduct gun violence research.

I'm sure I missed a few things and of course it would need further fleshing out before being finalized.  But if I were in congress this is the basic outline of the legislation that I would be drafting.


Generally this seems pretty reasonable.  Some points that may merit additional discussion though:

1 - Fully automatic weapons aren't really used too often in crime, I'm not sure there's going to be significant benefit from this action.

3 - There has still been no evidence presented that arming teachers will be a net benefit for child safety.  I'm not entirely sure why incentives should be given to carry a gun in a school.

11 - This is a bit tricky because mental illness will require a diagnosis.  If someone really likes his guns is he likely to seek psychiatric treatment if he knows he'll lost 'em?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 22, 2018, 11:59:52 AM
Unless somebody starts wanting to have a useful conversation about potential solutions that don't include confiscation of 70%+ of the lawful guns in this country, I'm out.

How about this for a solution?

1. Adjust the requirements for obtaining a machine gun to match other restricted weapons (grenade launchers, grenades, etc.).

Weapons capable of automatic fire are already effectively unobtainable.

The Las Vegas shooter (legally) modified a single-shot rifle that was able to accept high-capacity magazines. It's something worth adding to the list with regular automatic weapons, but the problem is you could 3D print the part.

Generally this seems pretty reasonable.  Some points that may merit additional discussion though:

1 - Fully automatic weapons aren't really used too often in crime, I'm not sure there's going to be significant benefit from this action.

3 - There has still been no evidence presented that arming teachers will be a net benefit for child safety.  I'm not entirely sure why incentives should be given to carry a gun in a school.

11 - This is a bit tricky because mental illness will require a diagnosis.  If someone really likes his guns is he likely to seek psychiatric treatment if he knows he'll lost 'em?

1 - Not trying to make them harder to obtain with that one.  My understanding from the discussion on these threads is that it would actually make them easier to obtain.  It's a message of good faith to conservatives, because I don't think it will significantly worsen the situation (since I don't see a lot of grenade launchers being used in crimes).

3 - Not incentives to carry, just incentives to allow school staff to carry if they so choose.

11- That's a good point and I don't have a great answer off the top of my head.

Edited to address multiple posts.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 22, 2018, 12:31:56 PM

If the conversation isn't going to be honest, why bother.


Unless somebody starts wanting to have a useful conversation about potential solutions that don't include confiscation of 70%+ of the lawful guns in this country, I'm out.

Put another way - "Wow, a lot of people have a different opinion than me.  I'm not talking to you guys."

Quote
A 2017 Pew Research Center poll found that 68 percent of adults favor banning assault weapons, and 65 percent support a ban on high-capacity magazines.

More strikingly, substantial numbers of gun owners supported the measures as well: 48 percent of gun owners in that poll said they would support a ban on assault style weapons, and 44 percent said they favored a ban on high-capacity magazines. A Quinnipiac poll conducted later in the year showed similar numbers.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on February 22, 2018, 12:34:44 PM

If the conversation isn't going to be honest, why bother.


Unless somebody starts wanting to have a useful conversation about potential solutions that don't include confiscation of 70%+ of the lawful guns in this country, I'm out.

Put another way - "Wow, a lot of people have a different opinion than me.  I'm not talking to you guys."

Quote
A 2017 Pew Research Center poll found that 68 percent of adults favor banning assault weapons, and 65 percent support a ban on high-capacity magazines.

More strikingly, substantial numbers of gun owners supported the measures as well: 48 percent of gun owners in that poll said they would support a ban on assault style weapons, and 44 percent said they favored a ban on high-capacity magazines. A Quinnipiac poll conducted later in the year showed similar numbers.

Get em down to the ballot box and let's amend the Constitution then. What people think doesn't matter unless, you know, they vote for it. And if it's a winning issue, Democrats should push gun control to the front of their platform for the 2018 midterms.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 22, 2018, 01:31:12 PM
That's what I'm saying.  The people that care about the right to own guns need to fix it.  The rest of us need to start pushing for a constitutional amendment.  They won't do anything as long as the status quo protects their right.  It's time to put that right under legitimate threat.  For too long the FEAR of someone coming to take their guns paralyzed them from action.  They need to be confronted by what it looks like when we actually come to take their guns.  It isn't going to be some sunglassed FBI agent, it's going to be the local soccer moms or the girl's cross country team.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on February 22, 2018, 01:52:48 PM
Is there any method by which the public is able to insist or force a referendum to amend the Constitution or is it left entirely up to the the Politicians?

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Peter Parker on February 22, 2018, 01:56:02 PM
That's what I'm saying.  The people that care about the right to own guns need to fix it.  The rest of us need to start pushing for a constitutional amendment.  They won't do anything as long as the status quo protects their right.  It's time to put that right under legitimate threat.  For too long the FEAR of someone coming to take their guns paralyzed them from action.  They need to be confronted by what it looks like when we actually come to take their guns.  It isn't going to be some sunglassed FBI agent, it's going to be the local soccer moms or the girl's cross country team.

I'm all for a constitutional amendment at this point (although, I think if you take a linguistic approach to reading the ONE-SENTENCE 2nd Amendment it doesn't say what the NRA and some Supreme Court Justices thinks it says).

That being said, after 45 years, we still haven't ratified the Equal Rights Amendment--mostly being held up by Red Southern States.  If we can't get soccer mom's on board with that, I'm not sure there is hope.  We shall see if there is a repudiation during the next course of elections, but after hearing the morons gobble up the NRA propaganda at the CPAC meeting today, I'm not hopeful.

After Trump's comments of eliminating ICE funding for California (on top of his penalizing blue states with his tax law), I'd be happy to secede our state from the rest of the union, take our 6th largest economy in the world for ourselves, stop providing welfare for all of backward red states, and be done with it...But I'd be happy if Oregon and Washington joined us too.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on February 22, 2018, 02:14:26 PM
https://www.local10.com/news/parkland-school-shooting/florida-house-votes-down-motion-to-take-up-weapons-ban-with-douglas-students-present

Florida House votes down motion to take up weapons ban with Douglas students present

A nearly party line vote (71-36) on the motion.

Don't forget that those FL kids protesting at the capital are actors! (sarcasm)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/20/aide-florida-lawmaker-outspoken-survivors-florida-shooting-crisis-actors/356960002/

That Trump was elected despite his mouth, that we've had another school shooting plus another already averted, and that the government requires more license and registration to have certain pets, ride scooters, and get married - than to buy guns and ammo - is mind boggling! The past couple of years has broken my reality.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 22, 2018, 02:23:12 PM
https://www.local10.com/news/parkland-school-shooting/florida-house-votes-down-motion-to-take-up-weapons-ban-with-douglas-students-present

Florida House votes down motion to take up weapons ban with Douglas students present

A nearly party line vote (71-36) on the motion.

Don't forget that those FL kids protesting at the capital are actors! (sarcasm)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/20/aide-florida-lawmaker-outspoken-survivors-florida-shooting-crisis-actors/356960002/

That Trump was elected despite his mouth, that we've had another school shooting plus another already averted, and that the government requires more license and registration to have certain pets, ride scooters, and get married - than to buy guns and ammo - is mind boggling! The past couple of years has broken my reality.

I’ve been terminated from the State House. I made a mistake whereas I tried to inform a reporter of information relating to his story regarding a school shooting. This was not my responsibility. I meant no disrespect to the students or parents of Parkland.

— Benjamin Kelly



Total non-apology and failure to accept personal responsibility.  What he should have said:


I’ve been terminated from the State House. I made a mistake when I tried to pass off my imagination as fact.  This was a stupid thing to do.  I am sorry for the disrespect I showed the students and parents of Parkland.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on February 22, 2018, 02:46:32 PM
Is there any method by which the public is able to insist or force a referendum to amend the Constitution or is it left entirely up to the the Politicians?

You want to amend the Constitution but you don't understand the mechanisms within it?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on February 22, 2018, 02:54:47 PM
That's what I'm saying.  The people that care about the right to own guns need to fix it.  The rest of us need to start pushing for a constitutional amendment.  They won't do anything as long as the status quo protects their right.  It's time to put that right under legitimate threat.  For too long the FEAR of someone coming to take their guns paralyzed them from action.  They need to be confronted by what it looks like when we actually come to take their guns.  It isn't going to be some sunglassed FBI agent, it's going to be the local soccer moms or the girl's cross country team.

I'm all for a constitutional amendment at this point (although, I think if you take a linguistic approach to reading the ONE-SENTENCE 2nd Amendment it doesn't say what the NRA and some Supreme Court Justices thinks it says).

That being said, after 45 years, we still haven't ratified the Equal Rights Amendment--mostly being held up by Red Southern States.  If we can't get soccer mom's on board with that, I'm not sure there is hope.  We shall see if there is a repudiation during the next course of elections, but after hearing the morons gobble up the NRA propaganda at the CPAC meeting today, I'm not hopeful.

After Trump's comments of eliminating ICE funding for California (on top of his penalizing blue states with his tax law), I'd be happy to secede our state from the rest of the union, take our 6th largest economy in the world for ourselves, stop providing welfare for all of backward red states, and be done with it...But I'd be happy if Oregon and Washington joined us too.

1 - Trump's ICE comment was one of his more idiotic (and that's saying something).
2 - If California were to attempt to secede, why would you assume a) the agricultural areas (primarily republican) would go along with the secession?  b) Along those lines, doesn't most of California's water supply originate from those same areas and/or other states? 

Lastly, this secession talk is really a dangerous hypothetical regardless because the rest of the US won't allow California to leave.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dabnasty on February 22, 2018, 02:56:39 PM
Is there any method by which the public is able to insist or force a referendum to amend the Constitution or is it left entirely up to the the Politicians?

You want to amend the Constitution but you don't understand the mechanisms within it?

I don't see how those two things are contradictory, the question seems to be asking for a loophole or lesser known path to amendment.

But as far as I know it must be proposed by congress.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on February 22, 2018, 03:00:05 PM
You want to amend the Constitution but you don't understand the mechanisms within it?
You want to answer a question with snark?

Well let me return the favour.......

Perhaps you missed or failed to comprehend my previous posts in which I stated I have no interest in whether or not the US decides to change its Constitution, nor even if it cares to change any of its laws.  Presently the US as a society has decided the carnage associated with its unique gun culture is acceptable.  I don't believe law changes will be effective until the US decides it is unwilling to accept that carnage.

You might also take note of how I phrased the above comment.

Care to answer the question now?  If not, feel free to ignore it rather than wasting your time by replying.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on February 22, 2018, 03:03:15 PM
I don't see how those two things are contradictory, the question seems to be asking for a loophole or lesser known path to amendment.

But as far as I know it must be proposed by congress.
That being the case then it seems a bit disingenuous for posters to keep making comments along the lines of "you need to get people out to vote if you want the Constitution to change".

With congress bought and paid for by vested interests it isn't likely to propose giving the power to the people to change the Constitution even if a demonstrable majority wanted it changed.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on February 22, 2018, 03:09:49 PM
I don't see how those two things are contradictory, the question seems to be asking for a loophole or lesser known path to amendment.

But as far as I know it must be proposed by congress.
That being the case then it seems a bit disingenuous for posters to keep making comments along the lines of "you need to get people out to vote if you want the Constitution to change".

With congress bought and paid for by vested interests it isn't likely to propose giving the power to the people to change the Constitution even if a demonstrable majority wanted it changed.

It's disingenuous to suggest that people of your persuasion need to put in some work and get voters out if you want to change the document that our country is founded on? OK
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 22, 2018, 05:12:43 PM
I don't see how those two things are contradictory, the question seems to be asking for a loophole or lesser known path to amendment.

But as far as I know it must be proposed by congress.
That being the case then it seems a bit disingenuous for posters to keep making comments along the lines of "you need to get people out to vote if you want the Constitution to change".

With congress bought and paid for by vested interests it isn't likely to propose giving the power to the people to change the Constitution even if a demonstrable majority wanted it changed.

The people in congress are voted into their positions.  If you don't like how corrupt they are, then you need to stop voting the corrupt ones into power.  You do need to get people out to vote if you want the Constitution to change.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on February 22, 2018, 05:33:43 PM
It's disingenuous to suggest that people of your persuasion need to put in some work and get voters out if you want to change the document that our country is founded on? OK
Did you fail to read again or fail to comprehend?

I do not have any interest in changing your Constitution.  Keep it the same, change it, use it to start a fire.  I don't care.  It's your country.

You do realise it is actually possible to be interested in a discussion and how things work without wanting to change it don't you?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on February 22, 2018, 05:40:36 PM
It's disingenuous to suggest that people of your persuasion need to put in some work and get voters out if you want to change the document that our country is founded on? OK
Did you fail to read again or fail to comprehend?

I do not have any interest in changing your Constitution.  Keep it the same, change it, use it to start a fire.  I don't care.  It's your country.

You do realise it is actually possible to be interested in a discussion and how things work without wanting to change it don't you?

Uh in your post just up thread you specifically query how the Constitution could be changed. And why the heck are you talking about our congress if you (presumably) aren't an American?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on February 22, 2018, 05:44:55 PM
The people in congress are voted into their positions.  If you don't like how corrupt they are, then you need to stop voting the corrupt ones into power.  You do need to get people out to vote if you want the Constitution to change.
I'm not suggesting anyone in congress is corrupt.  Corruption is illegal and I have no knowledge of any illegal acts having taken place.  However, the piper must be paid.  The representatives know that they have little chance of being elected again if the piper isn't paid in the appropriate manner.  And the piper who is owed the most gets paid first.  The vested interests ensure that they pay much more than the mere constituents who elect the representatives.

That's why both sides of politics have not made any attempt to change the 2nd amendment.  That's why I asked if there was a way the public could force the politicians to allow a vote on the actual question rather than wait to see if Congress will allow such a thing to happen.

And before Dr Hasslein fails to comprehend this post let me reassure him/her that I don't actually care if your Constitution is changed or not.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on February 22, 2018, 05:54:09 PM
Uh in your post just up thread you specifically query how the Constitution could be changed. And why the heck are you talking about our congress if you (presumably) aren't an American?
Yes I queried how your Constitution can be changed.  Are you suggesting that the only reason someone might enquire about something is because they want to change that something?  Here's one alternative possible reason.  Someone might be interested in verifying the claim of another person.

As for talking about your congress if I'm not American, are you suggesting the only people in the world who might have an interest in talking about your congress are Americans?  If the only things you have any interest in discussing are American things, might I suggest you broaden your view.  Try taking an interest in the world outside your borders, there are lots of interesting things you might find you would enjoy discussing that are not American.   Perhaps then you might come to understand that others might also enjoy discussing something that is American even if they are not American themselves.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on February 22, 2018, 06:10:33 PM
Uh in your post just up thread you specifically query how the Constitution could be changed. And why the heck are you talking about our congress if you (presumably) aren't an American?
Yes I queried how your Constitution can be changed.  Are you suggesting that the only reason someone might enquire about something is because they want to change that something?  Here's one alternative possible reason.  Someone might be interested in verifying the claim of another person.

As for talking about your congress if I'm not American, are you suggesting the only people in the world who might have an interest in talking about your congress are Americans?  If the only things you have any interest in discussing are American things, might I suggest you broaden your view.  Try taking an interest in the world outside your borders, there are lots of interesting things you might find you would enjoy discussing that are not American.   Perhaps then you might come to understand that others might also enjoy discussing something that is American even if they are not American themselves.

Whack whack! There's the sound of you knocking down a strawman. I am knowledgeable about politics in several other countries, yet I don't presume to make comments to people from those countries about their nations' internal affairs.

Go ahead and tell me what country you are a citizen of and I'd be happy to analyze a political facet of it that I disagree with.


Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on February 22, 2018, 06:51:11 PM
Whack whack! There's the sound of you knocking down a strawman. I am knowledgeable about politics in several other countries, yet I don't presume to make comments to people from those countries about their nations' internal affairs.
Who's making the strawman?

So you never discuss the politics of other countries with people from those countries?  Really?  And yet you think you are knowledgeable about the politics of those countries?  That's a good one.

If, as I suspect, by your comment of "presume to make comments......" you actually mean "presume to tell people from other countries how they should run their country....." then I ask you to link to any comment I have made which presumes to tell Americans how they should run their country.  I'll wait.
Quote from: Dr Hasslein
Go ahead and tell me what country you are a citizen of and I'd be happy to analyze a political facet of it that I disagree with.
Well that would suggest I give a hoot about your analysis of any political facet of my country.

Why don't you just admit that you didn't bother to read or comprehend my previous posts so you had some context before you spouted off about something that upset you because you incorrectly assumed something not actually true?  Wouldn't that be easier?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: No longer lurking on February 23, 2018, 07:47:52 AM
Hello, I have been reading the forums for a while but had to make an account to ask a question in this discussion. A little back story first, I am a gun owner. All the guns I own are hunting rifles, so most of the posters suggestions on stricter controls I am for. I also lost a family member in the Vegas mass shooting and it has changed my opinion considerably on them. I would gladly give up all my guns if it meant the amount of people getting murdered by them would lower significantly.
This may be to off topic for this thread, however is anyone familiar with the Black Panther movement? Do you think the progress they made was helped by their insistence to arm themselves or do you think it is what led to their demise?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 23, 2018, 08:07:04 AM
This may be to off topic for this thread, however is anyone familiar with the Black Panther movement? Do you think the progress they made was helped by their insistence to arm themselves or do you think it is what led to their demise?

I kinda think it was both.

The BPP came about because of the very evident racism and murders of black people by police.  It was a reaction to socially accepted abuses of police power.  Long term however, it's hard to advocate for peace when you're aggressively violent in your approach.  When you get any group of people who are armed and ready to use those arms, it's only a matter of time before mistakes happen.  The moment that you go from victim to aggressor, you lose legitimacy in your struggle.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 23, 2018, 08:29:48 AM
Is there any method by which the public is able to insist or force a referendum to amend the Constitution or is it left entirely up to the the Politicians?

There are a couple of ways actually!

From the constitution itself!

Thank you for the question:

Article V of the U.S. constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall
deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two
thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing
Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to
all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
ratifi ed by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the
one or the other Mode of Ratifi cation may be proposed by
the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be
made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and
eight shall in any Manner affect the fi rst and fourth Clauses
in the Ninth Section of the fi rst Article; and that no State,
without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate.

So you can accomplish it via state legislatures or a constitutional convention.  The reason the convention hasn't ever been used is that there would be little to no control over what happened at that convention.  That would likely end up being a "total overhaul" situation, and isn't ideal.  But a single state legislature could put forward an amendment and get 3/4 of the rest of the states to ratify it and then it'd be law.  And there doesn't have to be a sunset provision to that, some amendments took a really long time to get in.

There are some that would argue that Congress has to propose the amendment, but don't worry.  If the Supreme Court won't enforce an amendment because the process we used ignored "Congress shall propose" then we'll have good precedent for enforcing that "well regulated militia" bit.

The NRA has state legislatures locked up pretty tightly too, but I think we can do it.

Figure:  3/4 is 38 states:

For (maybe with some effort) (18)
Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Colorado, Ohio, Michigan, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont

Maybe (with alot of effort) (15)
Maine, New Hampshire, Iowa, Indiana, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Probably better spent efforts elsewhere (16):

Texas, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Mississippi, West Virginia

Once we get the first 18, the next 15 will be easier, and then it's just enough peer pressure to flip five of the hardest holdouts, maybe compromise to leave veterans with the right or something, and that'll be that.

So unless gun rights activists manage to stop armed rampage killings we're going to amend the constitution with something like:

The language in Amendment 2 is hereby clarified:  The right to keep and bear arms refers to the right to possess and wield artificial limbs or strap live bears to your arms.  Congress shall pass regulations limiting possession of firearms to peace officers and active duty military personnel, due to the inability of the militia to self-regulate.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on February 23, 2018, 08:44:37 AM
Is there any method by which the public is able to insist or force a referendum to amend the Constitution or is it left entirely up to the the Politicians?

There are a couple of ways actually!

From the constitution itself!

Thank you for the question:

Article V of the U.S. constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall
deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two
thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing
Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to
all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
ratifi ed by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the
one or the other Mode of Ratifi cation may be proposed by
the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be
made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and
eight shall in any Manner affect the fi rst and fourth Clauses
in the Ninth Section of the fi rst Article; and that no State,
without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate.

So you can accomplish it via state legislatures or a constitutional convention.  The reason the convention hasn't ever been used is that there would be little to no control over what happened at that convention.  That would likely end up being a "total overhaul" situation, and isn't ideal.  But a single state legislature could put forward an amendment and get 3/4 of the rest of the states to ratify it and then it'd be law.  And there doesn't have to be a sunset provision to that, some amendments took a really long time to get in.

There are some that would argue that Congress has to propose the amendment, but don't worry.  If the Supreme Court won't enforce an amendment because the process we used ignored "Congress shall propose" then we'll have good precedent for enforcing that "well regulated militia" bit.

The NRA has state legislatures locked up pretty tightly too, but I think we can do it.

Figure:  3/4 is 38 states:

For (maybe with some effort) (18)
Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Colorado, Ohio, Michigan, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont

Maybe (with alot of effort) (15)
Maine, New Hampshire, Iowa, Indiana, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Probably better spent efforts elsewhere (16):

Texas, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Mississippi, West Virginia

Once we get the first 18, the next 15 will be easier, and then it's just enough peer pressure to flip five of the hardest holdouts, maybe compromise to leave veterans with the right or something, and that'll be that.

So unless gun rights activists manage to stop armed rampage killings we're going to amend the constitution with something like:

The language in Amendment 2 is hereby clarified:  The right to keep and bear arms refers to the right to possess and wield artificial limbs or strap live bears to your arms.  Congress shall pass regulations limiting possession of firearms to peace officers and active duty military personnel, due to the inability of the militia to self-regulate.

Sorry, I can't see that working... should read:

The right to keep and bear arms refers to the right to possess and wield artificial limbs or strap live bear's arms to your arms.

Seriously, kudos to you for, first, doing the research, second for providing a thumbnail analysis of the state legislature standings and lastly for having the balls to make a truly revolutionary proposal to solve the problem.

You've raised my hope for the future.
Thanks 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: KTG on February 23, 2018, 08:45:14 AM
Looks like the resource officer assigned to Parkland didn't go in an confront the shooter.

I guess I can sort of see it in a way that he wasn't sure what was going on, and called in for backup. I am sure many, and partially myself, that he should have gone right in and shot it out with the shooter. I don't know the training he got and what he should have done. I know he resigned and the sheriff isn't happy. He was out-gunned though.

It just doesn't look good when a PE teacher dies in a hail of bullets protecting students while an armed cop sits outside and doesn't do a whole lot. And if a cop can't do a whole lot, what the hell do we expect teachers to do.

I highly doubt arming teachers is the way to go. There are all sorts of issues with self-defense too. I can just see a teacher, untrained and who really doesn't want to shoot anyone, shooting a active shooter in a way that might seem unwarranted (maybe at the moment the shooter was not threatening anyone), and then the teacher being arrested or locked up. Laugh if you want, but I have seen similar if not worse. And god forbid if during the firefight, the teacher accidentally hits a student.

Better yet, wait till a teacher who is having a bad day goes postal in a school, and we'll see the debate then.

I don't think there is a solution. America loves its guns. We can take turns passing the buck on who is responsible (gun sellers who aren't psychologists, not arming teachers, not loosening gun restrictions, not making gun ownership more restrictive, not enough cops, too many mentally ill people with guns, Trump (even though plenty of shootings happened under Obama too, etc etc), but the reality is, as bad as these shootings are, nothing will change. Congress will not change. For god's sake a congressman was shot and they still didn't have a debate. What do they care about kids who aren't in their districts?

So all this is pointless.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on February 23, 2018, 08:55:08 AM
Looks like the resource officer assigned to Parkland didn't go in an confront the shooter.

I guess I can sort of see it in a way that he wasn't sure what was going on, and called in for backup. I am sure many, and partially myself, that he should have gone right in and shot it out with the shooter. I don't know the training he got and what he should have done. I know he resigned and the sheriff isn't happy. He was out-gunned though.

It just doesn't look good when a PE teacher dies in a hail of bullets protecting students while an armed cop sits outside and doesn't do a whole lot. And if a cop can't do a whole lot, what the hell do we expect teachers to do.

I highly doubt arming teachers is the way to go. There are all sorts of issues with self-defense too. I can just see a teacher, untrained and who really doesn't want to shoot anyone, shooting a active shooter in a way that might seem unwarranted (maybe at the moment the shooter was not threatening anyone), and then the teacher being arrested or locked up. Laugh if you want, but I have seen similar if not worse. And god forbid if during the firefight, the teacher accidentally hits a student.

Better yet, wait till a teacher who is having a bad day goes postal in a school, and we'll see the debate then.

I don't think there is a solution. America loves its guns. We can take turns passing the buck on who is responsible (gun sellers who aren't psychologists, not arming teachers, not loosening gun restrictions, not making gun ownership more restrictive, not enough cops, too many mentally ill people with guns, Trump (even though plenty of shootings happened under Obama too, etc etc), but the reality is, as bad as these shootings are, nothing will change. Congress will not change. For god's sake a congressman was shot and they still didn't have a debate. What do they care about kids who aren't in their districts?

So all this is pointless.

I wonder if the people who suggest arming teachers ever stop to really reflect on what they are saying.

Turning a place of learning, meant for children, into an armed fortress.

The complete and utter madness of it all is bewildering.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 23, 2018, 09:04:14 AM
Looks like the resource officer assigned to Parkland didn't go in an confront the shooter.

I guess I can sort of see it in a way that he wasn't sure what was going on, and called in for backup. I am sure many, and partially myself, that he should have gone right in and shot it out with the shooter. I don't know the training he got and what he should have done. I know he resigned and the sheriff isn't happy. He was out-gunned though.

It just doesn't look good when a PE teacher dies in a hail of bullets protecting students while an armed cop sits outside and doesn't do a whole lot. And if a cop can't do a whole lot, what the hell do we expect teachers to do.

I highly doubt arming teachers is the way to go. There are all sorts of issues with self-defense too. I can just see a teacher, untrained and who really doesn't want to shoot anyone, shooting a active shooter in a way that might seem unwarranted (maybe at the moment the shooter was not threatening anyone), and then the teacher being arrested or locked up. Laugh if you want, but I have seen similar if not worse. And god forbid if during the firefight, the teacher accidentally hits a student.

Better yet, wait till a teacher who is having a bad day goes postal in a school, and we'll see the debate then.

I don't think there is a solution. America loves its guns. We can take turns passing the buck on who is responsible (gun sellers who aren't psychologists, not arming teachers, not loosening gun restrictions, not making gun ownership more restrictive, not enough cops, too many mentally ill people with guns, Trump (even though plenty of shootings happened under Obama too, etc etc), but the reality is, as bad as these shootings are, nothing will change. Congress will not change. For god's sake a congressman was shot and they still didn't have a debate. What do they care about kids who aren't in their districts?

So all this is pointless.

FWIW, I participated in a shooting simulation at a large university a few years back. Three or four different LE agencies participated (2 University departments, Hospital, City, County). The protocol was for officers to enter the building as quickly as possible, mostly sidearms, maybe rifles if they have time to grab them from the car, standard uniforms, no heavy armor.

It's a little bit different than this scenario, because there are a lot more officers on duty in the general area, and they used teams of three or four to clear the building. But the tactics were very proactive. It's a lot more dangerous for the officers than waiting for SWAT, but the idea is to end the situation as quickly as possible, because that's the only way you're going to limit casualties and secure the scene for medics.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: KTG on February 23, 2018, 09:04:52 AM
I don't mind allowing teachers to arm themselves, I really don't. But doing so for the purpose of protecting the school? Wow. I think more qualified personal would be in order.

But there is a reason people shoot at people in churches, schools, movie theaters, and not police stations and army bases. Its because they know they wont last long attacking a police station or army base, and they want to inflict as many casualties as possible. So they go where there are less defenses. I do not have children, but I have nephews. I can't imagine in this day and age any parent who wishfully thinks that their schools are safer without some kind of ARMED protection, in our society. Any parent who says, "guns do not belong in our schools" doesn't seem to grasp we live in America during these times. They are, dangerous times. We do need to be prepared. If you think its justifiable to have a weapon for home protection, I image its not hard to justify protecting children at schools.

Maybe some day there will be a change in society and stricter gun controls and therefore less shootings in schools, but until that day comes, schools need to be protected in a way they tells potential attackers that it is not worth their effort to go there.

Until that happens, get used to these shootings.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 23, 2018, 09:07:16 AM

But there is a reason people shoot at people in churches, schools, movie theaters, and not police stations and army bases. Its because they know they wont last long attacking a police station or army base, and they want to inflict as many casualties as possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: KTG on February 23, 2018, 09:12:02 AM
Yes, I am aware this happened, and this was more of a terrorist attack. I am sure there are shootings at police stations too.  Just not to the degree that school shootings happen.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 23, 2018, 09:36:00 AM
I don't mind allowing teachers to arm themselves, I really don't. But doing so for the purpose of protecting the school? Wow. I think more qualified personal would be in order.

But there is a reason people shoot at people in churches, schools, movie theaters, and not police stations and army bases.

This is a valid point.  People are allowed to carry firearms in churches and movie theaters.  This hasn't prevented shootings from occurring in these locations.  The protective benefit of allowing teachers to arm themselves may well be far less than some people suspect.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: KTG on February 23, 2018, 09:45:48 AM
Looking back at the teachers I had in Middle and High School, very few of them stick out in my mind as capable of doing a shootout with an active shooter.

I don't know what schools you guys went to, but most of my teachers were elderly and female. A few coaches I can remember may have been able to fill the role pretty well, but that's it.

Teachers become teachers to teach. There is a personality trait that typically goes a lot with that. They do not sign up to be teachers to 'protect and server' or defend the country.

I am sure there are a few bad ass teachers in any country that would do an exceptional job with whatever means necessary, but the idea of arming them to solve these problems is ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PASSING THE BUCK.

We would need a greater police presence to protect schools, but they cost money. The counties can barely pay for school materials and teacher's salaries, so wonder where the extra cash is going to come from.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 23, 2018, 09:54:50 AM
MMM-adjacent: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/02/21/when-you-buy-these-bike-brands-youre-supporting-the-gun-lobby/
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 23, 2018, 10:05:29 AM
Looking back at the teachers I had in Middle and High School, very few of them stick out in my mind as capable of doing a shootout with an active shooter.

I don't know what schools you guys went to, but most of my teachers were elderly and female. A few coaches I can remember may have been able to fill the role pretty well, but that's it.

Teachers become teachers to teach. There is a personality trait that typically goes a lot with that. They do not sign up to be teachers to 'protect and server' or defend the country.

I am sure there are a few bad ass teachers in any country that would do an exceptional job with whatever means necessary, but the idea of arming them to solve these problems is ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PASSING THE BUCK.

We would need a greater police presence to protect schools, but they cost money. The counties can barely pay for school materials and teacher's salaries, so wonder where the extra cash is going to come from.

Exactly.

And selling more guns, of course.

Imagine the cost of arming, say, 20% of teachers.

The Washington post tried to estimate this, and came up with the estimate of 3.6 million teachers in public and private schools.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/22/the-economics-of-arming-americas-schools/?utm_term=.b74a9467350c

20% of that is 718,000.

We would essentially be adding 50 percent to the size of the military by mandating that nearly three-quarters of a million people be trained and prepared to take up arms to defend civilians.

What kind of training would they receive? The bare minimum? They estimate about $100 per person for that.

That's $71.8 million.

A more robust training -- with 26 hours of training over 3 days, would be about $1000.

That more robust training means that the cost for our 718,000 teachers spikes to $718 million.

Then there's the cost of the guns.


This would be additional money we'd need find and spend in an environment where we have some schools that can't afford to meet five days a week. Some schools that don't require a degree in teaching to teach because they pay teachers so little. None of this would go to teaching students.

The president says teachers should get "a little bit of a bonus." A true bonus would be any amount above the actual cost. Or is he saying is that we'd expect teachers to cover the cost of this training on their own? So this might be a "tax" on teachers instead of people that are paying teachers.

That's not a bonus. That's grossly underpaying teachers. Again.

How many of you can look back on your teachers and think of at least one or two who had some... let's put this kindly... anger issues? Or who seemed unduly stressed out by teaching, and didn't like the job? Or who just plain don't seem like good candidates for this?

Do you REALLY think that a school that gets a mandate passed down to them to arm 20% of their teachers is going to look very closely at who they arm? Because frankly, a good number of these people will NOT volunteer to do it.

It's quite likely that at least some of the volunteers are people who should not be carrying a handgun around your kid.

It's also likely that such a shift in culture would cause a fair number of teachers to quit. And a fair number of people contemplating a teaching career to abandon the idea.

These might very well be just the kinds of teachers your kids need. The ones who would make EXCELLENT teachers, and who would do anything for your kids, but who do not want to teach in this new culture.

Which leaves... who? Well, if Trump gets his wish, we'll see, I guess.

But I'm not very confident that who it leaves are the best teachers.



Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on February 23, 2018, 10:08:33 AM
If this problem continues parents will begin forming homeschooling efforts. Or parents will ask for permission to patrol the hallways while classes are in session - not necessarily armed - but with radios or cellphones to call in problems.

My children both attend schools that have large glass panels at ground level. Even if the building is locked up, a determined shooter will easily enter the building by smashing their way in.

I can imagine groups of volunteer parents taking turns watching the school just like we did guard duty in the military.

Even then shooters could change tactics and do horrendous things during dismissal.

Gun access limits, mental health improvements and cultural change. None of it will give immediate results. I still think our nation is rotting and needs to be stabilized. Extreme political division isn't helping either. Neither is social media. Nor 24-hour news. Nor our fascination with celebrity.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dabnasty on February 23, 2018, 10:17:21 AM
I suspect the primary benefit of arming teachers would come from the possibility that someone might shoot back deterring would be shooters. As many have already pointed out there are issues with a teacher who has limited training carrying and even more so firing a gun. The ideal situation in my mind would be one where no one knows which teachers may have a gun and very few if any actually do.

But then even this could have negative impacts for some students who are distracted or scared of the fact that their teachers may have a gun. I don't think this would have bothered me as a student but I can imagine those who have no experience with guns would be more fearful of them.

Regarding the idea of giving raises or bonuses to teachers who are armed, I think that's about the worst part of the plan. Giving the option on a completely voluntary basis would likely attract very few teachers but they would be teachers who already have some training/experience and the desire to actually be the hero if the time came. If we get teacher's to do it for money you will get more people who are just, well, doing it for the money.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 23, 2018, 10:30:56 AM
I suspect the primary benefit of arming teachers would come from the possibility that someone might shoot back deterring would be shooters. As many have already pointed out there are issues with a teacher who has limited training carrying and even more so firing a gun. The ideal situation in my mind would be one where no one knows which teachers may have a gun and very few if any actually do.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this is exactly the same scenario that you have with churches, movie theaters, and other public places, right?  Is there any evidence that this has reduced the number of mass shootings in those locations?


But then even this could have negative impacts for some students who are distracted or scared of the fact that their teachers may have a gun. I don't think this would have bothered me as a student but I can imagine those who have no experience with guns would be more fearful of them.

Accidents with guns are rare, but they do happen.  School shootings are rare, but they do happen.  The negative impact of increasing the number of gun accidents in schools by allowing teachers to carry firearms may well outweigh any benefit that comes from having them.




Another unproven assumption we keep making is that a teacher with a gun will be a hero, stopping the bad guy.  Is it not just as likely that a teacher with a gun, semi-trained, under stress, with adrenaline running through his/her veins misses the shot and ends up simply adding to the casualties?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on February 23, 2018, 10:43:35 AM
Can't afford books, bus service, basic supplies and/or athletics. But here are your guns. Sheer lunacy!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 23, 2018, 10:44:27 AM

Another unproven assumption we keep making is that a teacher with a gun will be a hero, stopping the bad guy.  Is it not just as likely that a teacher with a gun, semi-trained, under stress, with adrenaline running through his/her veins misses the shot and ends up simply adding to the casualties?

I would say it's not anywhere near as likely.  The more likely scenario would be that they do nothing but hunker up in their class room with their kids, which would still be a major improvement if the shooter tried to get into their class room. 

They may not be very effective, but just taking a couple of pot shots at the shooter would slow down most shooters, which would be a big deal by itself. 

It's been a while, but there was a Pearl, Mississippi shooting in the late ninieties where a teacher ran to his car to get his gun, came back and stopped the shooting not by killing the shooter, but just by the shooter no longer advancing.  Eventually the police arrived and I think the shooter actually surrendered and stood trial.  I suspect some shooters would force the issue rather than letting themselves be pinned down by the threat of fire, but even then it's probably be 50/50 whether the teacher or the shooter prevails (or maybe better because I imagine both would end up injured in a lot of situations). 

Can't remember when the Gun Free Schools act or whatever was passed, but I think if it was in effect, the Pearl Mississippi teacher was actually committing a crime by having his gun in his car. 

ETA:  I'm still not sure the number of school shootings really justify teachers going through the trouble to carry on a regular basis, but it seems like some of the least destructive policies being considered.  It seems like it would be a shame if we started paying for an armed guard or more at every school for such an extremely low risk, but it also seems somewhat horrifying to just say, it's an extremely low risk, so we're just going to leave kids defenseless against shooters, even if that might be the rational approach based on a cost benefit analysis. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: partgypsy on February 23, 2018, 10:58:54 AM
But you know, all the extra guns could come in handy in case a grizzly bear attacks the school. It's totally worth the extra cost. I love how the NRA, no matter what the problem is, MORE guns is the solution. Teachers, student, police Mds: we want to ban military grade assault weapons so this can't happen again.  NO, you are being silly. Say a student comes in with his god given right for an AR 15, you can have a shoot out with the teachers and their handguns. Teachers and students: We don't WANT that, that's a stupid idea and wouldn't solve the problem! NRA: those silly teachers and students. Just because they had to live through a massacre they act like they know what they are talking about. Or they are crisis actors. Something.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 23, 2018, 11:04:34 AM
But you know, all the extra guns could come in handy in case a grizzly bear attacks the school. It's totally worth the extra cost. I love how the NRA, no matter what the problem is, MORE guns is the solution.

When all you have is a hammer ...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 23, 2018, 11:06:37 AM
There's a very relevant article from Scientific America that discusses what information we do have regarding the efficacy of arming people for safety:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/)


But you know, all the extra guns could come in handy in case a grizzly bear attacks the school. It's totally worth the extra cost. I love how the NRA, no matter what the problem is, MORE guns is the solution.

When all you have is a hammer ...

Then you clearly need a gun!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 23, 2018, 11:29:41 AM
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/23/17043216/florida-shooting-nra-teachers-guns

There is only one solution - fewer guns and more difficult access to guns.  It is true around the world - if you want less gun deaths, have fewer guns.

Bringing up insane ideas like arming teachers (gee, who stands to profit from arming hundreds of thousands of teachers?  the gun manufacturers backing the NRA) or mental health (We don't have a monopoly on mental health problems but we do have a monopoly on owning a shit load of guns) is all a distraction.  There's a finite window of time where the public cares about gun laws and gun control - about 2 to 3 weeks.

The NRA and Trump are throwing out everything they possibly can - arm teachers, mental health, more guns are needed, blame the media, blame George Soros, etc. etc. - because they want to muddy up the discussion, create a lot of noise, and it works every time.  We haven't passed a single piece of gun legislation since Sandy Hook.  The NRA and the right are good at what they do.  They prey on fear (you need good guys with guns to kill the bad guys.  the liberal government wants to take away the 2nd amendment).  This is all a distraction to get anything meaningful done.  Then, they wait for the public to lose interest and to move on to the next news item.

Don't fall for it.  If you want gun deaths to be reduced in this country, we need fewer guns and stricter gun laws.  Period.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Peter Parker on February 23, 2018, 12:03:52 PM
How about we tax the shit out of guns and ammo to help offset costs for the training and arming of our schools, the metal detectors, the redesign of the buildings, the security personnel, the medical professionals, and on and on...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Dabnasty on February 23, 2018, 12:09:01 PM
I suspect the primary benefit of arming teachers would come from the possibility that someone might shoot back deterring would be shooters. As many have already pointed out there are issues with a teacher who has limited training carrying and even more so firing a gun. The ideal situation in my mind would be one where no one knows which teachers may have a gun and very few if any actually do.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this is exactly the same scenario that you have with churches, movie theaters, and other public places, right?  Is there any evidence that this has reduced the number of mass shootings in those locations?

More or less, ya. Movie theaters in particular are vulnerable due to setting (dark) and even though people can carry in church it is less likely that they will than on a day to day basis.

Either way I agree that there is little evidence of benefit but would also point out that statistical evidence would be extremely difficult to come by due to lack of data points and a control. It's really just speculation on either side and if that's the best we've got I'm sure there are people whose speculation is worth more than my own.

To be clear, I'm not in favor of arming teachers but I try to keep an open mind. I think the best solution would be stricter gun control.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: meghan88 on February 23, 2018, 12:38:30 PM
A non-Mustachian solution as described by Chris Rock:  raise the price of bullets to $5,000 each.  If only ...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017481478
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Peter Parker on February 23, 2018, 12:48:26 PM
A non-Mustachian solution as described by Chris Rock:  raise the price of bullets to $5,000 each.  If only ...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017481478

That's a good one....and, honestly, I think it is part of the solution.  Tax the crap out of guns and ammo!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: px4shooter on February 23, 2018, 01:27:18 PM

But there is a reason people shoot at people in churches, schools, movie theaters, and not police stations and army bases. Its because they know they wont last long attacking a police station or army base, and they want to inflict as many casualties as possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting

You do realize that military members can't carry guns, right? Using the military base was probably not a good example, as these are heavily controlled restricted firearm zones. All of that particular muslim terrorist's targets were forced to be unarmed, even though they could carry a gun at work.

The military has shifted its views (slightly) on firearm possession.

Israeli schools have armed guards and the staff is armed. Jewish schools seem to do the same in the US too.

What should be learned is that gun free zones are soft targets. These are targeted by terrorists and the crazy. The criminals do not care if they violate the gun free zone law. It does not make the area any safer, as it only disarms those that want to comply with the laws.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 23, 2018, 01:36:16 PM
https://www.vox.com/2018/2/23/17044318/nra-membership-partners-cut-ties
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on February 23, 2018, 01:53:05 PM

Another unproven assumption we keep making is that a teacher with a gun will be a hero, stopping the bad guy.  Is it not just as likely that a teacher with a gun, semi-trained, under stress, with adrenaline running through his/her veins misses the shot and ends up simply adding to the casualties?

I would say it's not anywhere near as likely.  The more likely scenario would be that they do nothing but hunker up in their class room with their kids, which would still be a major improvement if the shooter tried to get into their class room. 

They may not be very effective, but just taking a couple of pot shots at the shooter would slow down most shooters, which would be a big deal by itself. 

It's been a while, but there was a Pearl, Mississippi shooting in the late ninieties where a teacher ran to his car to get his gun, came back and stopped the shooting not by killing the shooter, but just by the shooter no longer advancing.  Eventually the police arrived and I think the shooter actually surrendered and stood trial.  I suspect some shooters would force the issue rather than letting themselves be pinned down by the threat of fire, but even then it's probably be 50/50 whether the teacher or the shooter prevails (or maybe better because I imagine both would end up injured in a lot of situations). 

Can't remember when the Gun Free Schools act or whatever was passed, but I think if it was in effect, the Pearl Mississippi teacher was actually committing a crime by having his gun in his car. 

ETA:  I'm still not sure the number of school shootings really justify teachers going through the trouble to carry on a regular basis, but it seems like some of the least destructive policies being considered.  It seems like it would be a shame if we started paying for an armed guard or more at every school for such an extremely low risk, but it also seems somewhat horrifying to just say, it's an extremely low risk, so we're just going to leave kids defenseless against shooters, even if that might be the rational approach based on a cost benefit analysis.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/us/school-shootings-teachers.html

That principal is against arming teachers.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on February 23, 2018, 01:58:22 PM
https://www.vox.com/2018/2/23/17044318/nra-membership-partners-cut-ties

Its about time. Brands flee celebrities and politicians after mere poorly chosen words or affairs. 

Its taken how many mass shootings for these companies to bail on the NRA?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Peter Parker on February 23, 2018, 02:04:55 PM
https://www.vox.com/2018/2/23/17044318/nra-membership-partners-cut-ties

Its about time. Brands flee celebrities and politicians after mere poorly chosen words or affairs. 

Its taken how many mass shootings for these companies to bail on the NRA?

It takes a short amount of time to tweet your thanks to these companies....It takes guts to stand up to the NRA.  (I'd say ask a politician, but I haven't found one yet that had ties to the NRA and has yet to stand up to them)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 23, 2018, 02:20:39 PM
https://www.vox.com/2018/2/23/17044318/nra-membership-partners-cut-ties

Its about time. Brands flee celebrities and politicians after mere poorly chosen words or affairs. 

Its taken how many mass shootings for these companies to bail on the NRA?

It takes a short amount of time to tweet your thanks to these companies....It takes guts to stand up to the NRA.  (I'd say ask a politician, but I haven't found one yet that had ties to the NRA and has yet to stand up to them)

This is a very good point. I'm going to add this to my list of things to do.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bacchi on February 23, 2018, 03:06:37 PM
What should be learned is that gun free zones are soft targets. These are targeted by terrorists and the crazy. The criminals do not care if they violate the gun free zone law. It does not make the area any safer, as it only disarms those that want to comply with the laws.

Airports aren't gun free zones. There are armed police and TSA all over the place and, somehow, they still have shootings.

Maybe it's not so simple as you think it is.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on February 23, 2018, 11:57:58 PM
Thank you for the question:

You're welcome and thank you for the response.
Quote from: TheOldestYoungMan
Article V of the U.S. constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall
deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two
thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing
Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to
all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the
one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by
the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be
made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and
eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses
in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State,
without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate.

So you can accomplish it via state legislatures or a constitutional convention.
So if I'm reading things right, Congress can propose an amendment or a Convention can be held if 2/3's of states agree to having it and the Convention can then propose an amendment.  That's the first part.  Then the amendment, whether proposed by Congress or by the Convention, must be agreed to by 3/4's of the States for it to come into effect.  Is that correct?

Do the people ever actually have a say in any of this?  Is the amendment ever put to a vote by the people and if so are the various State Legislature obligated to abide by the vote or can they ignore it?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: px4shooter on February 24, 2018, 08:48:00 AM
What should be learned is that gun free zones are soft targets. These are targeted by terrorists and the crazy. The criminals do not care if they violate the gun free zone law. It does not make the area any safer, as it only disarms those that want to comply with the laws.

Airports aren't gun free zones. There are armed police and TSA all over the place and, somehow, they still have shootings.

Maybe it's not so simple as you think it is.

I don't think you understand that gun free zones only apply to the people and not the government's agents. It is only gun free for the people and those that choose to obey the law.

So, the unarmed masses that are in the airport's gun free zone aren't safe? Say it isn't so. Just like the school in Florida, where the only armed person chose not to go after the shooter, while unarmed teachers were trying to protect the kids.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bacchi on February 24, 2018, 09:32:57 AM
What should be learned is that gun free zones are soft targets. These are targeted by terrorists and the crazy. The criminals do not care if they violate the gun free zone law. It does not make the area any safer, as it only disarms those that want to comply with the laws.

Airports aren't gun free zones. There are armed police and TSA all over the place and, somehow, they still have shootings.

Maybe it's not so simple as you think it is.

I don't think you understand that gun free zones only apply to the people and not the government's agents. It is only gun free for the people and those that choose to obey the law.

So, the unarmed masses that are in the airport's gun free zone aren't safe? Say it isn't so. Just like the school in Florida, where the only armed person chose not to go after the shooter, while unarmed teachers were trying to protect the kids.

You're right. I didn't know the Gun-Free Zone law.

What you don't understand is that truly mentally ill don't care if there are a lot of guns around. These people aren't making rational decisions. Why would they strategically decide to go to a mall instead of, say, shoot up a police station?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_attack_on_Dallas_police

The "arm everyone" advocates have been watching too many movies and think that the good guys wear White Hats and the bad guys wear Black Hats and never the lines cross. No White Hats get road rage and pull out a gun. No White Hats get in a bar fight and pull out a gun. The Bad Guys are also super-duper easy to tell because they're Middle-Eastern looking. Or they use Chinese weapons? Whatever -- I think the identifiers are explained in the NRA membership packet.

To put it bluntly, I trust myself with a gun and I trust my partner with a gun. However, I don't trust [the general] you with a gun. [The general] You probably didn't have enough training and the general you is not as disciplined as you should be.

Are there any examples where every adult is armed and it's gone well?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on February 24, 2018, 09:53:36 AM

The "arm everyone" advocates have been watching too many movies and think that the good guys wear White Hats and the bad guys wear Black Hats and never the lines cross. No White Hats get road rage and pull out a gun. No White Hats get in a bar fight and pull out a gun. The Bad Guys are also super-duper easy to tell because they're Middle-Eastern looking. Or they use Chinese weapons? Whatever -- I think the identifiers are explained in the NRA membership packet.

To put it bluntly, I trust myself with a gun and I trust my partner with a gun. However, I don't trust [the general] you with a gun. [The general] You probably didn't have enough training and the general you is not as disciplined as you should be.

Are there any examples where every adult is armed and it's gone well?

This is what gets me. I always think of the LEGO shows my kids watch where the "criminals" all wear black and white shirts. The criminals are us; every last one of us can be a criminal at any point in time. Also, the "government" a segment of our population thinks it's so important to be armed against? It's people like my husband. It's people we know and love.

About these teachers, do people think it also will be like the movies where the bad guys go down with a single shot, and the good guys always hit their target? I really need to start making a greater effort to explain how dumb that stuff is to my kids in the shows they watch...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on February 24, 2018, 10:17:23 AM

But there is a reason people shoot at people in churches, schools, movie theaters, and not police stations and army bases. Its because they know they wont last long attacking a police station or army base, and they want to inflict as many casualties as possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting

You do realize that military members can't carry guns, right? Using the military base was probably not a good example, as these are heavily controlled restricted firearm zones. All of that particular muslim terrorist's targets were forced to be unarmed, even though they could carry a gun at work.

The military has shifted its views (slightly) on firearm possession.

Israeli schools have armed guards and the staff is armed. Jewish schools seem to do the same in the US too.

What should be learned is that gun free zones are soft targets. These are targeted by terrorists and the crazy. The criminals do not care if they violate the gun free zone law. It does not make the area any safer, as it only disarms those that want to comply with the laws.

That's not true at all. When is the last time a terrorist/mass shooter picked a place purely on the basis it was marked as a gun free zone? The Florida shooter didn't shoot up the school because it was a "gun free zone." Hell they had literally an armed guard at the school. He didn't care! Mass shooters have agendas that don't really involve "gun free zones."

In terms of military bases they are filled with soldiers carrying guns. They are called MPs or SPs.  You literally have an entire police force in a tiny little area able to respond in seconds.

That whole "they pick gun free zones" is a giant red herring.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on February 24, 2018, 12:09:32 PM
At any given time there might be a dozen armed people on a military base - much like a small university police force. The rest of the guns are locked up.

It would still be a soft target unless the assault was a long one and people had time to get to the armory and be issued weapons.

There would be more armed people on guard duty if the base was on alert though. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 24, 2018, 01:28:25 PM
Just wanted to weigh in on this issue. I am for gun rights. First of all, this post is based on the premise that this issue is argued on both sides with the arguments rooted in, I don’t know if emotion is the right word or at least not based on pure logic or rationality. People that argue for guns, myself included, come at it from the emotional standpoint of liking guns at least in part. It’s not purely logical. On the gun control side, there’s a lot of emotion too. I posted a post awhile back talking about this, but logically alcohol kills much more people than guns. Do not mistake it, this is not deflecting or whatever logical fallacy you’d like to say, because I am NOT saying that we can’t have a conversation about guns because something else that is also preventable kills more people. We can talk about multiple things simultaneously. But it’s not deflection to simply state the fact that people on the gun control side do not talk with the fervor about banning alcohol that they do about banning firearms. There aren’t news stories about the deaths due to alcohol on the news when a drunk driver kills someone or about generational poverty due to alcohol or whatever. I’m not claiming the high ground here. I’m just saying that it’s not as if a person is impartial, looks at the statistics holistically, and then makes a decision to push their congressmen and tell their friends to support gun control or to support gun rights. No, we see a tragedy that’s in the grand scheme of things (even in regards to overall gun homicides) an anomaly and then argue vehemently to restrict guns. On the other side, we hear rumors that Obama’s going to take the guns or whatever and post memes all over Facebook about how you can blame misspelling on pencils if you blame guns for murders. All that to be said, at our core, we’re much more emotionally driven than logically driven.

All that being said, I’m curious as to how people for gun control feel about this from a philosophical standpoint at least. There’s a lot of blame and guilt laid out in regards to this. I’ve seen it on these posts. We’ve heard it where at the town hall in Florida, people were yelling at the NRA spokesman that they were murderers. I’ve seen it with people saying, gun rights people are at fault because they don’t have solutions to prevent killings. There’s blood on their hands. They bear at least some responsibility in the murders that are committed.

My thought is this. There’s a theme in this thread and in just the general vibe of articles and the like that, maybe we’re not banning all guns, but there is a push from multiple people that guns as a means of self-defense is not a right. It wasn’t meant to be guaranteed in the Constitution, or even if it was, let’s change it to take it away. This comes out in the specifics where examples are cited that you can have a gun, even a hand gun, but only to take to the range and shoot. Long rifles are fine, as long as they’re just for hunting. When these things are in the house, they not only need to be locked up, but they need to be locked up, and the ammo needs to be stored separately. To me, that’s pretty squarely in the frame of reference of you can have it, but you should never need to use it for defense. Plan a hunting trip, gather everything up and go or plan a trip to the range or whatnot. Just don’t have it accessible for you to potentially defend yourself. Again, this is based on the examples of requirements people want combined with the arguments that defense isn’t or shouldn’t be part of the rights to have a gun.
OK, so if that’s the case, let me give you a story. A very intoxicated/high (not sure) person attempted to break into my grandfather’s house. He was older, probably 65-70 or so. The guy was so out of it that he wrecked and thought someone in his car was hurt (no one was in the car). He was so belligerent about it that he smashed through the glass door to get in. My grandfather had a shotgun and was able to get him to leave with it. I’m not sure if he fired a warning shot or the sight of it simply got through to him. The guy fled and was eventually caught. So, would anything have happened if the gun hadn’t been there? No one could possibly know. The guy, however, was so out of it and was in his 20’s, so who knows if he would have gotten so angry about my grandfather “resisting helping” or what not that he seriously hurt or killed him. He certainly could have, as he was much younger and stronger. Again, no one could possibly know, and this story is one of the many examples of guns preventing crime that there are almost certainly no statistics about because no one was shot. All in all, this is an anecdote. I know that, but aren’t they all? The Florida shooting is ultimately an anecdote. A very tragic one, but it’s a single story that’s captured the public’s thoughts.

Protecting yourself where I live is a fact of life. The police are many minutes away when things happen. If my grandfather would not have had a loaded gun to be able to dissuade the guy from coming in, would he have been hurt or killed? I have no idea. All I know is that I got to spend 25 more years or so with him that I might not have.

My question is this, if things go down the path of restricting guns for self-defense – and again, this doesn’t mean taking up all the guns, just making it where using it for self-defense is harder/impractical, would anyone on the gun control side feel guilt? Does anyone from that side ever think about it like that? I’m a product of my perspective as much as anyone else, and I do know multiple people who may have gotten hurt or worse if their access to loaded firearms as a deterrent were removed.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: scottish on February 24, 2018, 01:43:38 PM
Honestly, most non-Americans find it strange that Americans feel such a need for firearms for self-protection.   We wonder, is violent crime really so bad in the US that people need a sidearm/shotgun/carbine for protection?   and if it is, maybe you should focus on solving the violent crime problem.   Just saying.

The other observation I'll make is that the pro-gun rights crowd talk about their rights on a regular basis.   How about a statement of your responsibilities as gun owners?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 24, 2018, 01:55:52 PM
Quote
There aren’t news stories about the deaths due to alcohol on the news when a drunk driver kills someone or about generational poverty due to alcohol or whatever.

There is in my country. There’s also extensive education on the consequences of drink driving, and the promotion of responsible behaviour. Also if you are irresponsible and caught over the legal blood to alcohol limit while in control of a vehicle at the minimum you loose the right to drive a car.

Quote
There’s a theme in this thread and in just the general vibe of articles and the like that, maybe we’re not banning all guns, but there is a push from multiple people that guns as a means of self-defense is not a right. It wasn’t meant to be guaranteed in the Constitution, or even if it was, let’s change it to take it away. This comes out in the specifics where examples are cited that you can have a gun, even a hand gun, but only to take to the range and shoot. Long rifles are fine, as long as they’re just for hunting. When these things are in the house, they not only need to be locked up, but they need to be locked up, and the ammo needs to be stored separately. To me, that’s pretty squarely in the frame of reference of you can have it, but you should never need to use it for defense...

...My question is this, if things go down the path of restricting guns for self-defense – and again, this doesn’t mean taking up all the guns, just making it where using it for self-defense is harder/impractical, would anyone on the gun control side feel guilt? Does anyone from that side ever think about it like that?

Yes I thought about the desire for self defence. If you see my suggestions, the requirement to lock up firearms is explicitly when the owner is NOT at home. When they are home, and they are not safely stored, the owner shares the responsibility of any damage caused by their guns.

How do you feel about this?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 24, 2018, 03:02:12 PM
Honestly, most non-Americans find it strange that Americans feel such a need for firearms for self-protection.   We wonder, is violent crime really so bad in the US that people need a sidearm/shotgun/carbine for protection?   and if it is, maybe you should focus on solving the violent crime problem.   Just saying.

Yep.

Hunting, sure.  Target practice at the range?  OK.  Farm use, defending livestock from predators . . . yeah that makes sense.  Carry with you every day because you live in mortal fear of being robbed, murdered, beaten, home-invaded?  That's kinda a strange reason to love guns.



Quote
My question is this, if things go down the path of restricting guns for self-defense – and again, this doesn’t mean taking up all the guns, just making it where using it for self-defense is harder/impractical, would anyone on the gun control side feel guilt?

I'll see your grandfather story and raise you this one:  https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5499161/boy-11-shoots-toddler-sister-dead-accidentally-while-playing-with-gun-before-turning-firearm-on-himself-in-despair/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5499161/boy-11-shoots-toddler-sister-dead-accidentally-while-playing-with-gun-before-turning-firearm-on-himself-in-despair/).  Given that things have already gone down the path of almost no restrictions or rules for buying/keeping guns, does anyone on the gun advocacy side feel guilt for the toddlers who are shooting people on a weekly (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.c81eafffcc47 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.c81eafffcc47)) basis in the US?

The bulk of the research done on the issue seems to indicate that despite popular opinion, on the balance owning a gun is not protective from violence.  (Good article here:  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/).)  So no, I wouldn't feel any guilt if it was a bit harder to get a gun.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on February 24, 2018, 04:45:02 PM
At any given time there might be a dozen armed people on a military base - much like a small university police force. The rest of the guns are locked up.

It would still be a soft target unless the assault was a long one and people had time to get to the armory and be issued weapons.

There would be more armed people on guard duty if the base was on alert though.

There are a hell of a lot more than 12 MPs or SPs on duty at any given time. You are missing the large "smack you in the face" point. You literally have to pass a security check point manned by armed military police. A random person with no connection to the military is never going to pick a military installation to carry at a mass shooting.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 24, 2018, 07:58:18 PM
Honestly, most non-Americans find it strange that Americans feel such a need for firearms for self-protection.   We wonder, is violent crime really so bad in the US that people need a sidearm/shotgun/carbine for protection?   and if it is, maybe you should focus on solving the violent crime problem.   Just saying.

The other observation I'll make is that the pro-gun rights crowd talk about their rights on a regular basis.   How about a statement of your responsibilities as gun owners?

Thanks for the response, Scottish. I can't speak in terms of a non-American, as I am an American. I am, however, not ignorant of the statistics. We are getting safer overall as a nation. The chances of me being involved in a violent conflict are tremendously small. That being said, if I were to keep a gun locked up in a safe (ammo with it), where only I know where the key or combination is (or potentially a spouse), pay attention to anyone in my house with issues that would make them getting it very dangerous (and taking steps to prevent that if it were so), and doing some other common sense measures, the chances of that firearm being a problem are also tremendously small. Again, I default to my experiences. Neither I nor anyone I know has harmed anyone with a gun. I have known several who have. Anecdotal? Of course. Extremely rare on both sides, certainly.

In regards to responsibilities, I would say the primary responsibility of a gun owner would be the things I mentioned above. The biggest other responsibility would be to not sell off guns to people who don't need them. That would kind of keep the responsibility pretty much out of a gun owner as an individual's hands IMO.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 24, 2018, 08:08:46 PM
Quote
There aren’t news stories about the deaths due to alcohol on the news when a drunk driver kills someone or about generational poverty due to alcohol or whatever.

There is in my country. There’s also extensive education on the consequences of drink driving, and the promotion of responsible behaviour. Also if you are irresponsible and caught over the legal blood to alcohol limit while in control of a vehicle at the minimum you loose the right to drive a car.

Quote
There’s a theme in this thread and in just the general vibe of articles and the like that, maybe we’re not banning all guns, but there is a push from multiple people that guns as a means of self-defense is not a right. It wasn’t meant to be guaranteed in the Constitution, or even if it was, let’s change it to take it away. This comes out in the specifics where examples are cited that you can have a gun, even a hand gun, but only to take to the range and shoot. Long rifles are fine, as long as they’re just for hunting. When these things are in the house, they not only need to be locked up, but they need to be locked up, and the ammo needs to be stored separately. To me, that’s pretty squarely in the frame of reference of you can have it, but you should never need to use it for defense...

...My question is this, if things go down the path of restricting guns for self-defense – and again, this doesn’t mean taking up all the guns, just making it where using it for self-defense is harder/impractical, would anyone on the gun control side feel guilt? Does anyone from that side ever think about it like that?

Yes I thought about the desire for self defence. If you see my suggestions, the requirement to lock up firearms is explicitly when the owner is NOT at home. When they are home, and they are not safely stored, the owner shares the responsibility of any damage caused by their guns.

How do you feel about this?

In regards to your first part about the rules for driving, they certainly seem to be a step in the right direction. I would challenge, though, that even if the USA were to enact such a thing, drunk driving is simply a significant minority of all the consequences of alcohol. Abuse caused, self inflicted injuries, and generational poverty are the majority of the issues. Drunk driving is a very serious and easily highlighted problem. The other stuff isn't as easy to rally behind. I don't mean to rehash the previous post, but to treat alcohol the same as many people want guns to be restricted, you would have to restrict people much more and do it before people do anything wrong. If they do something wrong, you would have to restrict not just ability to drive but actual ability to consume. While I have found some who may casually agree with this sentiment, I have seen no one who can genuinely say they are actively pushing for it, lobbying for their congressmen to do it, etc.

In regards to your second point, I do not see a big conflict with that and what I was meaning (if it did not come across clearly, and if I understand you correctly). If you have a gun in your house and your child gets it and hurts themselves or someone else, I completely understand prosecution of the person for doing it. The only issue I have, and to be honest, it is a personal gripe of mine (not sure if you supported this or not) is that the homeowner be responsible if someone breaks into their house while they are not there and steals it if it's not "secured properly enough." I have this problem on a lot of issues, though, probably from my country background. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that responsibility is so often shirked by people who want to be "sue happy." You have a swimming pool. It's not "guarded properly," and a child jumps in and gets hurt......I'm sorry, that's the responsibility of the parent. I'm a parent. If I let my child loose outdoors in an area that had swimming pools nearby where they weren't old enough to know better (or were and chose not to restrain themselves, jumped in, and got hurt), that's my responsibility as a parent. I'm not operating a business on my property, charging people to come in, and thus holding liability for making it safe. It's just my house. I feel the same way about guns. You break into someone's house, sheesh, that's on you. The gun doesn't have to be locked into a state of the art 1 ton safe that can't be carted off. You broke into their house. That's on you for stealing it. The owner should report it, but not hold responsibility in that case, IMO. Sorry for the rant. Other than that, I default back to knowing your family and keeping it out of the hands of people in your family who shouldn't have it (underage, unstable, etc.), and if you don't, yea, that's a problem.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 24, 2018, 08:21:39 PM
Honestly, most non-Americans find it strange that Americans feel such a need for firearms for self-protection.   We wonder, is violent crime really so bad in the US that people need a sidearm/shotgun/carbine for protection?   and if it is, maybe you should focus on solving the violent crime problem.   Just saying.

Yep.

Hunting, sure.  Target practice at the range?  OK.  Farm use, defending livestock from predators . . . yeah that makes sense.  Carry with you every day because you live in mortal fear of being robbed, murdered, beaten, home-invaded?  That's kinda a strange reason to love guns.



Quote
My question is this, if things go down the path of restricting guns for self-defense – and again, this doesn’t mean taking up all the guns, just making it where using it for self-defense is harder/impractical, would anyone on the gun control side feel guilt?

I'll see your grandfather story and raise you this one:  https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5499161/boy-11-shoots-toddler-sister-dead-accidentally-while-playing-with-gun-before-turning-firearm-on-himself-in-despair/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5499161/boy-11-shoots-toddler-sister-dead-accidentally-while-playing-with-gun-before-turning-firearm-on-himself-in-despair/).  Given that things have already gone down the path of almost no restrictions or rules for buying/keeping guns, does anyone on the gun advocacy side feel guilt for the toddlers who are shooting people on a weekly (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.c81eafffcc47 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.c81eafffcc47)) basis in the US?

The bulk of the research done on the issue seems to indicate that despite popular opinion, on the balance owning a gun is not protective from violence.  (Good article here:  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/).)  So no, I wouldn't feel any guilt if it was a bit harder to get a gun.

Thanks for the response, GuitarStv, and for the interesting article. I think it's a challenge to statistically determine safety in individual cases when there are so many individual components to it. A gun left loaded in a safe that, when it's taken out, is handled in a casual and not respectful fashion is different than one that's handled by someone who respects it, treats it as always loaded, etc. IMO, overall statistics on whether a specific home would be safer or less safe is a little hard pin down. I am not a statistics major, and freely admit this opinion may come off as naive.

Thanks for your forthright response on the fact that you would not feel guilt if it were a bit harder to get a gun. I am not advocating for no rules, changes or further restrictions. If I came across that way in some of my more generic statements, it was in error. I am specifically targeting the line of logic that guns used for defense are in no way a right. I am not a big guilt person. I don't feel guilty that someone else chose to poorly handle something and it got their family hurt. I don't typically tell others they should feel guilty either. It doesn't seem to me that gun rights people propose the feeling of guilt upon people who are for gun control a lot (maybe I am wrong on this, and I stand willing to be corrected if I am). Gun rights people are more on the mockery, righteous indignation, etc. kind of thing to me. However, the reverse, I can attest is not true. Gun control people often propose that gun rights people should feel guilty. My question is, would they be willing to take on some of that guilt themselves if they defeat a person's ability to defend themselves and, as a result, someone who was simply minding their own business at home got hurt when they could have protected themselves if they had a gun (which inevitably would happen if some of the restrictions propose occur).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 24, 2018, 08:27:23 PM
Good thing Wolfpack's grandpa had an AR-15.  If not, I'm sure the intruder would have just laughed at a hunting rifle pointed at him, and Wolfpack never would have got those 25 years.

Thank you so very much for the snarky, mocking reply, and for making me regret sharing a story after only a few hours of posting it that, believe it or not, was actually very personal for me who, as a 6 or so year old boy was so very thankful that his grandfather didn't get hurt. I truly appreciate your bringing up him having an AR-15 when it was specifically commented that he had a shotgun (I believe that is called a strawman, but who am I to dare to defy such deft logic). I also appreciate you commenting as if my response had anything to do with the type of weapon he had, instead of his access to the weapon with ammunition in it (the very definition of self defense with a gun as an unloaded gun is not very helpful). My discussion was specifically focused on the right to have a loaded weapon (and thus useful weapon), not a type of weapon, but congratulations on scoring your point for the gun control side. Your compassion overtakes me.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: SharkStomper on February 25, 2018, 12:09:33 AM

In terms of military bases they are filled with soldiers carrying guns. They are called MPs or SPs.  You literally have an entire police force in a tiny little area able to respond in seconds.


I'm not sure what bases you're referring to, but I travel to military bases for a living and can assure you that the only armed people I ever see are the gate guards.  To say that bases are filled with soldiers carrying guns is just not true.  I'm sure they have special response teams, but so does your local PD and their response time isn't going to be measured in seconds. LOL
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on February 25, 2018, 06:48:02 AM

In terms of military bases they are filled with soldiers carrying guns. They are called MPs or SPs.  You literally have an entire police force in a tiny little area able to respond in seconds.


I'm not sure what bases you're referring to, but I travel to military bases for a living and can assure you that the only armed people I ever see are the gate guards.  To say that bases are filled with soldiers carrying guns is just not true.  I'm sure they have special response teams, but so does your local PD and their response time isn't going to be measured in seconds. LOL

MP = Military Police. SP = Security Police. They are referred to differently with different services. They man the gates and patrol the post/base much like an actual police unit.

It's great that you visited military installations. I actually lived on them. And deployed to a couple overseas. But you probably know more since you visited. LOL

And let's completely ignore the fact that armed guards secure every entrance to a military installation which has strict requirements for gaining access to. Sounds like an easy target!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: SharkStomper on February 25, 2018, 06:59:39 AM

In terms of military bases they are filled with soldiers carrying guns. They are called MPs or SPs.  You literally have an entire police force in a tiny little area able to respond in seconds.


I'm not sure what bases you're referring to, but I travel to military bases for a living and can assure you that the only armed people I ever see are the gate guards.  To say that bases are filled with soldiers carrying guns is just not true.  I'm sure they have special response teams, but so does your local PD and their response time isn't going to be measured in seconds. LOL

MP = Military Police. SP = Security Police. They are referred to differently with different services. They man the gates and drive around the base on patrol. All of them armed.

It's great that you visited military installations. I actually lived on them.

Then you know how large many of the bases are and how sparsely manned security forces are.  I can drive around many bases for hours and never pass an MP, you make it sound like they're everywhere.

I find your statement that bases are filled with armed soldiers and security response times measured in seconds to be ludicrous.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on February 25, 2018, 08:04:07 AM

In terms of military bases they are filled with soldiers carrying guns. They are called MPs or SPs.  You literally have an entire police force in a tiny little area able to respond in seconds.


I'm not sure what bases you're referring to, but I travel to military bases for a living and can assure you that the only armed people I ever see are the gate guards.  To say that bases are filled with soldiers carrying guns is just not true.  I'm sure they have special response teams, but so does your local PD and their response time isn't going to be measured in seconds. LOL

MP = Military Police. SP = Security Police. They are referred to differently with different services. They man the gates and drive around the base on patrol. All of them armed.

It's great that you visited military installations. I actually lived on them.

Then you know how large many of the bases are and how sparsely manned security forces are.  I can drive around many bases for hours and never pass an MP, you make it sound like they're everywhere.

I find your statement that bases are filled with armed soldiers and security response times measured in seconds to be ludicrous.

I know how condensed they are in terms of liveable/workable space. For instance I can enter the southeast gate of Ft. Drum, drive less than 4 miles and exit the northwest gate. Ft. Drum maintains roughly 13K active military personnel and is the most deployed unit in the US.  And I know personally how huge their training ranges are. A very large portion of military personnel actually live off post in fact. Can't really house tens of thousands of soldiers in a relatively small area. Those who do live on post live in dorms.  Why are you driving around bases for hours? That seems very suspicious.

Of course you find my statement ludicrous. I mean you drive around bases for hours, so someone who was stationed at bases (actually they are "post")  and worked with, deployed with and trained with MPs and SPs, probably doesn't know as much as you.

Thanks for schooling me ( :
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 25, 2018, 08:15:04 AM
Honestly, most non-Americans find it strange that Americans feel such a need for firearms for self-protection.   We wonder, is violent crime really so bad in the US that people need a sidearm/shotgun/carbine for protection?   and if it is, maybe you should focus on solving the violent crime problem.   Just saying.

Yep.

Hunting, sure.  Target practice at the range?  OK.  Farm use, defending livestock from predators . . . yeah that makes sense.  Carry with you every day because you live in mortal fear of being robbed, murdered, beaten, home-invaded?  That's kinda a strange reason to love guns.



Quote
My question is this, if things go down the path of restricting guns for self-defense – and again, this doesn’t mean taking up all the guns, just making it where using it for self-defense is harder/impractical, would anyone on the gun control side feel guilt?

I'll see your grandfather story and raise you this one:  https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5499161/boy-11-shoots-toddler-sister-dead-accidentally-while-playing-with-gun-before-turning-firearm-on-himself-in-despair/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5499161/boy-11-shoots-toddler-sister-dead-accidentally-while-playing-with-gun-before-turning-firearm-on-himself-in-despair/).  Given that things have already gone down the path of almost no restrictions or rules for buying/keeping guns, does anyone on the gun advocacy side feel guilt for the toddlers who are shooting people on a weekly (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.c81eafffcc47 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.c81eafffcc47)) basis in the US?

The bulk of the research done on the issue seems to indicate that despite popular opinion, on the balance owning a gun is not protective from violence.  (Good article here:  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/).)  So no, I wouldn't feel any guilt if it was a bit harder to get a gun.

Thanks for the response, GuitarStv, and for the interesting article. I think it's a challenge to statistically determine safety in individual cases when there are so many individual components to it. A gun left loaded in a safe that, when it's taken out, is handled in a casual and not respectful fashion is different than one that's handled by someone who respects it, treats it as always loaded, etc. IMO, overall statistics on whether a specific home would be safer or less safe is a little hard pin down. I am not a statistics major, and freely admit this opinion may come off as naive.

Thanks for your forthright response on the fact that you would not feel guilt if it were a bit harder to get a gun. I am not advocating for no rules, changes or further restrictions. If I came across that way in some of my more generic statements, it was in error. I am specifically targeting the line of logic that guns used for defense are in no way a right. I am not a big guilt person. I don't feel guilty that someone else chose to poorly handle something and it got their family hurt. I don't typically tell others they should feel guilty either. It doesn't seem to me that gun rights people propose the feeling of guilt upon people who are for gun control a lot (maybe I am wrong on this, and I stand willing to be corrected if I am). Gun rights people are more on the mockery, righteous indignation, etc. kind of thing to me. However, the reverse, I can attest is not true. Gun control people often propose that gun rights people should feel guilty. My question is, would they be willing to take on some of that guilt themselves if they defeat a person's ability to defend themselves and, as a result, someone who was simply minding their own business at home got hurt when they could have protected themselves if they had a gun (which inevitably would happen if some of the restrictions propose occur).

With regards to guilt . . . the difference I suppose, is that gun advocacy has completely won in the US.  The current gun climate is the result of decades of loose to no restrictions on ownership.  You want a fully automatic weapon?  You can get one without too much difficulty (although greater cost).  You want a grenade launcher?  Same story.  You want a semiautomatic hand gun?  Even easier.  You want a semiautomatic rifle?  Ridiculously easy.  There's no registry.  There's no record of sale if they're not sold from a gun dealer.  You're allowed to openly carry in all but six states.  You're allowed to concealed carry in all states.  There isn't a single issue that gun advocacy has won on.

If all firearms but the ball/powder muskets were banned from private ownership in the US, and it was illegal to carry a weapon openly anywhere, and it was illegal to store a firearm that wasn't kept in a gun safe, and it was illegal to transport firearms without a permit, and all firearms were part of a registry, and an owner was legally held responsible for any illegal accident/action that took place using his firearm . . . that's what it would look like if a similar number of disproportionate wins had been made on the other side.

The reason that guilt is often levied towards gun rights supporters is that gun related problems appear to be directly caused by the policies that you have supported and won on.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: SharkStomper on February 25, 2018, 08:52:33 AM

In terms of military bases they are filled with soldiers carrying guns. They are called MPs or SPs.  You literally have an entire police force in a tiny little area able to respond in seconds.


I'm not sure what bases you're referring to, but I travel to military bases for a living and can assure you that the only armed people I ever see are the gate guards.  To say that bases are filled with soldiers carrying guns is just not true.  I'm sure they have special response teams, but so does your local PD and their response time isn't going to be measured in seconds. LOL

MP = Military Police. SP = Security Police. They are referred to differently with different services. They man the gates and drive around the base on patrol. All of them armed.

It's great that you visited military installations. I actually lived on them.

Then you know how large many of the bases are and how sparsely manned security forces are.  I can drive around many bases for hours and never pass an MP, you make it sound like they're everywhere.

I find your statement that bases are filled with armed soldiers and security response times measured in seconds to be ludicrous.

I know how condensed they are in terms of liveable/workable space. For instance I can enter the southeast gate of Ft. Drum, drive less than 4 miles and exit the northwest gate. Ft. Drum maintains roughly 13K active military personnel and is the most deployed unit in the US.  And I know personally how huge their training ranges are. A very large portion of military personnel actually live off post in fact. Can't really house tens of thousands of soldiers in a relatively small area. Those who do live on post live in dorms.  Why are you driving around bases for hours? That seems very suspicious.

Of course you find my statement ludicrous. I mean you drive around bases for hours, so someone who was stationed at bases (actually they are "post")  and worked with, deployed with and trained with MPs and SPs, probably doesn't know as much as you.

Thanks for schooling me ( :

You'd think with all of that MP presence they'd easily notice a suspicious contractor looking for a building that is always numbered logically.  Hell I'd be satisfied with being able to find one for directions.  Please stop me so I can find the damn vet clinic!  LMAO

TIL that MP's will respond within seconds to base emergencies!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on February 25, 2018, 09:35:06 AM

In terms of military bases they are filled with soldiers carrying guns. They are called MPs or SPs.  You literally have an entire police force in a tiny little area able to respond in seconds.


I'm not sure what bases you're referring to, but I travel to military bases for a living and can assure you that the only armed people I ever see are the gate guards.  To say that bases are filled with soldiers carrying guns is just not true.  I'm sure they have special response teams, but so does your local PD and their response time isn't going to be measured in seconds. LOL

MP = Military Police. SP = Security Police. They are referred to differently with different services. They man the gates and drive around the base on patrol. All of them armed.

It's great that you visited military installations. I actually lived on them.

Then you know how large many of the bases are and how sparsely manned security forces are.  I can drive around many bases for hours and never pass an MP, you make it sound like they're everywhere.

I find your statement that bases are filled with armed soldiers and security response times measured in seconds to be ludicrous.

I know how condensed they are in terms of liveable/workable space. For instance I can enter the southeast gate of Ft. Drum, drive less than 4 miles and exit the northwest gate. Ft. Drum maintains roughly 13K active military personnel and is the most deployed unit in the US.  And I know personally how huge their training ranges are. A very large portion of military personnel actually live off post in fact. Can't really house tens of thousands of soldiers in a relatively small area. Those who do live on post live in dorms.  Why are you driving around bases for hours? That seems very suspicious.

Of course you find my statement ludicrous. I mean you drive around bases for hours, so someone who was stationed at bases (actually they are "post")  and worked with, deployed with and trained with MPs and SPs, probably doesn't know as much as you.

Thanks for schooling me ( :

You'd think with all of that MP presence they'd easily notice a suspicious contractor looking for a building that is always numbered logically.  Hell I'd be satisfied with being able to find one for directions.  Please stop me so I can find the damn vet clinic!  LMAO

TIL that MP's will respond within seconds to base emergencies!

Perhaps the specialized ESP MP's weren't on shift. You would think during those aimless hours of driving you would have used this thing called a phone. ( : Maps help as well.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on February 25, 2018, 10:03:35 AM
Just wanted to weigh in on this issue. I am for gun rights. First of all, this post is based on the premise that this issue is argued on both sides with the arguments rooted in, I don’t know if emotion is the right word or at least not based on pure logic or rationality. People that argue for guns, myself included, come at it from the emotional standpoint of liking guns at least in part. It’s not purely logical. On the gun control side, there’s a lot of emotion too. I posted a post awhile back talking about this, but logically alcohol kills much more people than guns. Do not mistake it, this is not deflecting or whatever logical fallacy you’d like to say, because I am NOT saying that we can’t have a conversation about guns because something else that is also preventable kills more people. We can talk about multiple things simultaneously. But it’s not deflection to simply state the fact that people on the gun control side do not talk with the fervor about banning alcohol that they do about banning firearms. There aren’t news stories about the deaths due to alcohol on the news when a drunk driver kills someone or about generational poverty due to alcohol or whatever. I’m not claiming the high ground here. I’m just saying that it’s not as if a person is impartial, looks at the statistics holistically, and then makes a decision to push their congressmen and tell their friends to support gun control or to support gun rights. No, we see a tragedy that’s in the grand scheme of things (even in regards to overall gun homicides) an anomaly and then argue vehemently to restrict guns. On the other side, we hear rumors that Obama’s going to take the guns or whatever and post memes all over Facebook about how you can blame misspelling on pencils if you blame guns for murders. All that to be said, at our core, we’re much more emotionally driven than logically driven.

All that being said, I’m curious as to how people for gun control feel about this from a philosophical standpoint at least. There’s a lot of blame and guilt laid out in regards to this. I’ve seen it on these posts. We’ve heard it where at the town hall in Florida, people were yelling at the NRA spokesman that they were murderers. I’ve seen it with people saying, gun rights people are at fault because they don’t have solutions to prevent killings. There’s blood on their hands. They bear at least some responsibility in the murders that are committed.

My thought is this. There’s a theme in this thread and in just the general vibe of articles and the like that, maybe we’re not banning all guns, but there is a push from multiple people that guns as a means of self-defense is not a right. It wasn’t meant to be guaranteed in the Constitution, or even if it was, let’s change it to take it away. This comes out in the specifics where examples are cited that you can have a gun, even a hand gun, but only to take to the range and shoot. Long rifles are fine, as long as they’re just for hunting. When these things are in the house, they not only need to be locked up, but they need to be locked up, and the ammo needs to be stored separately. To me, that’s pretty squarely in the frame of reference of you can have it, but you should never need to use it for defense. Plan a hunting trip, gather everything up and go or plan a trip to the range or whatnot. Just don’t have it accessible for you to potentially defend yourself. Again, this is based on the examples of requirements people want combined with the arguments that defense isn’t or shouldn’t be part of the rights to have a gun.
OK, so if that’s the case, let me give you a story. A very intoxicated/high (not sure) person attempted to break into my grandfather’s house. He was older, probably 65-70 or so. The guy was so out of it that he wrecked and thought someone in his car was hurt (no one was in the car). He was so belligerent about it that he smashed through the glass door to get in. My grandfather had a shotgun and was able to get him to leave with it. I’m not sure if he fired a warning shot or the sight of it simply got through to him. The guy fled and was eventually caught. So, would anything have happened if the gun hadn’t been there? No one could possibly know. The guy, however, was so out of it and was in his 20’s, so who knows if he would have gotten so angry about my grandfather “resisting helping” or what not that he seriously hurt or killed him. He certainly could have, as he was much younger and stronger. Again, no one could possibly know, and this story is one of the many examples of guns preventing crime that there are almost certainly no statistics about because no one was shot. All in all, this is an anecdote. I know that, but aren’t they all? The Florida shooting is ultimately an anecdote. A very tragic one, but it’s a single story that’s captured the public’s thoughts.

Protecting yourself where I live is a fact of life. The police are many minutes away when things happen. If my grandfather would not have had a loaded gun to be able to dissuade the guy from coming in, would he have been hurt or killed? I have no idea. All I know is that I got to spend 25 more years or so with him that I might not have.

My question is this, if things go down the path of restricting guns for self-defense – and again, this doesn’t mean taking up all the guns, just making it where using it for self-defense is harder/impractical, would anyone on the gun control side feel guilt? Does anyone from that side ever think about it like that? I’m a product of my perspective as much as anyone else, and I do know multiple people who may have gotten hurt or worse if their access to loaded firearms as a deterrent were removed.

Just wanted to jump in and say thank you for this thoughtful, non-insulting post from the pro-gun side. I think it's one of the first I've ever seen that didn't devolve into insults on terminology and "the left". For the record, I'm an Independent who has always favored gun rights, but not when they start harming my rights.

To clarify, I'm going to go with the alcohol example. Most people don't worry about the effects of alcohol because they aren't generally very immediate and are contained to a familial/personal level. Most of the people I know drink responsibly. (Most of the gun owners I know are responsible.)

This breaks down when someone commits a DUI. Then the alcohol users clash horrifically with the non-drinkers/responsible drinkers. People die, or end up with massive property damage or life altering injuries. Then we end up with MADD and highly restrictive laws concerning alcohol use and vehicles.

This is how I view gun control: guns are fine as lo as they remain a personal decision that I don't need to worry about. The more mass shootings, the more incidents with weapons that occur close to home, the more I want regulations (like we did for DUIs) that will bring them back to what I remember. If that means renewing the assault weapon ban that expired, let's please do it.

No, I don't feel guilty about gun control. I have to admit I feel an awful lot of gun owners are pretty irresponsible and get away with it. When kids get ahold of a weapon and accidentally (or on purpose) kill someone or themselves, I pretty much never see the gun owner arrested. The kid bears the burden of guilt. As a parent, that is unconscionable. I don't believe having a weapon makes people safer.

I think your grandfather should be able to keep his shotgun. That doesn't bother me. I don't think teenagers should be allowed to own guns. As someone who didn't grow up with guns or owns one now (but married to someone who did own guns and is trained as an adult to use them), we still decided to not buy one until our kids are much older because it seems risky, not something that makes any of us safer? But, we let our son learn to shoot a gun at scouts. We'd love to find a range where we can go and fire a gun, but leave it there.

Being labeled an extremist or ignorant by pro-gun people makes me despise them and want to swing all the way to the other side.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 25, 2018, 01:38:12 PM
Good thing Wolfpack's grandpa had an AR-15.  If not, I'm sure the intruder would have just laughed at a hunting rifle pointed at him, and Wolfpack never would have got those 25 years.

Thank you so very much for the snarky, mocking reply, and for making me regret sharing a story after only a few hours of posting it that, believe it or not, was actually very personal for me who, as a 6 or so year old boy was so very thankful that his grandfather didn't get hurt. I truly appreciate your bringing up him having an AR-15 when it was specifically commented that he had a shotgun (I believe that is called a strawman, but who am I to dare to defy such deft logic). I also appreciate you commenting as if my response had anything to do with the type of weapon he had, instead of his access to the weapon with ammunition in it (the very definition of self defense with a gun as an unloaded gun is not very helpful). My discussion was specifically focused on the right to have a loaded weapon (and thus useful weapon), not a type of weapon, but congratulations on scoring your point for the gun control side. Your compassion overtakes me.

Would you be in favor or legislation banning AR-15s and assault rifles -- yes or no?  And why? 

If a grenade launcher were classified as a gun, would you be in favor of legislation banning grenade launchers -- yes or no?  And why?

Let's go with the grenade launcher question first. A grenade launcher due to the virtual inability to use it without collateral damage would seem to me to put it in another category entirely. It's possible to use an actual rifle of whatever designation and hunt with it or shoot a single person if used accurately without automatically guaranteeing destruction to everyone around it. To me, it's in an obviously different category than any rifle.

In regards to "assault rifles," (and I do put it deliberately in quotes because to my knowledge, there has been no concrete definition of what the phrase entails) I would believe you can get much more bang for your buck so to speak if you were going to try to regulate magazine capacities of rifles. When banning "assault rifles," people on the side of gun rights immediately jump to the assault weapons ban which, to my knowledge, was never proven effective and which even gun control rights people realize had parts that were silly. Furthermore, while AR-15's and the like do have a tendency to be used in mass shootings, hand guns are used as well and actually are used in many more deaths than rifles of any type. While it could be argued (and I believe has earlier in this thread, but I may be wrong) that certain aspects of these guns, specifically the pistol grip, I believe was mentioned, could make it easier to wield and use for mass shootings, overall, they are very similar to any semi-auto rifle. If the purpose is to ban all semi-auto rifles or all semi-auto guns period, I feel to be intellectually honest, that should be what it is called, and if not, I fail to see a great deal of difference between semi-auto rifles of a variety of types, although I am not the expert on guns that many are. Again, I think if you're wanting to help work towards reducing the risk of these rifles, reduction in magazine capacity would be a better thing to focus on.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 25, 2018, 01:41:44 PM
Honestly, most non-Americans find it strange that Americans feel such a need for firearms for self-protection.   We wonder, is violent crime really so bad in the US that people need a sidearm/shotgun/carbine for protection?   and if it is, maybe you should focus on solving the violent crime problem.   Just saying.

Yep.

Hunting, sure.  Target practice at the range?  OK.  Farm use, defending livestock from predators . . . yeah that makes sense.  Carry with you every day because you live in mortal fear of being robbed, murdered, beaten, home-invaded?  That's kinda a strange reason to love guns.



Quote
My question is this, if things go down the path of restricting guns for self-defense – and again, this doesn’t mean taking up all the guns, just making it where using it for self-defense is harder/impractical, would anyone on the gun control side feel guilt?

I'll see your grandfather story and raise you this one:  https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5499161/boy-11-shoots-toddler-sister-dead-accidentally-while-playing-with-gun-before-turning-firearm-on-himself-in-despair/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5499161/boy-11-shoots-toddler-sister-dead-accidentally-while-playing-with-gun-before-turning-firearm-on-himself-in-despair/).  Given that things have already gone down the path of almost no restrictions or rules for buying/keeping guns, does anyone on the gun advocacy side feel guilt for the toddlers who are shooting people on a weekly (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.c81eafffcc47 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.c81eafffcc47)) basis in the US?

The bulk of the research done on the issue seems to indicate that despite popular opinion, on the balance owning a gun is not protective from violence.  (Good article here:  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/).)  So no, I wouldn't feel any guilt if it was a bit harder to get a gun.

Thanks for the response, GuitarStv, and for the interesting article. I think it's a challenge to statistically determine safety in individual cases when there are so many individual c